NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!


Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda (http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/04/20/112694.html)
TIM CURRAN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

You admire the action of spitting someone else in the face?

I wish I could say I was surprised.

Oh grow up you tobacco chewing rube. (the man in the article, not you Eut) I don't care how much you dislike a person's politics, spitting in anyone's face is just rude.

So much for free speech...she spoke out against the war (as did many), and has become reviled and branded a traitor. Just like the Dixie Chicks. Just like so many. Yay for self-censorship! Who needs national laws to deal with people who speak against the government when your own citizens will 'deal' with them?

By the way, why exactly do you 'hate that bitch'?

By the way, why exactly do you 'hate that bitch'?

Come, now. Jane Fonda uses words to express dissension. That's why they hate her. Acting all high and mighty, with her civility and freedom of expression.

I for one don't know how being against violence has been twisted around to be something negative, but people need to get their heads out of their asses. The actions of that man clearly defined his personality. Now as for anti-war people spitting on veterans, that's not acceptable either and that also defines their personality.

Oh grow up you tobacco chewing rube. (the man in the article, not you Eut) I don't care how much you dislike a person's politics, spitting in anyone's face is just rude.

So much for free speech...she spoke out against the war (as did many), and has become reviled and branded a traitor. Just like the Dixie Chicks. Just like so many. Yay for self-censorship! Who needs national laws to deal with people who speak against the government when your own citizens will 'deal' with them?


Jane Fonda did more than speak out against the war. She certainly had the attention and resources to make public statements against it. She went a little further though.
She chose to actually go to the enemy in person, her prescence alone boosting our enemies morale and helping to damage that of our soldiers. Sort of like a USO tour, but for the other side. She aided and abetted the enemy. Freedom of speech would have been here in the US,taking part in a protest, etc... And she isnt sorry she did it, in her own words, she is sorry she was photographed doing it.

Oh grow up you tobacco chewing rube. (the man in the article, not you Eut) I don't care how much you dislike a person's politics, spitting in anyone's face is just rude.

So much for free speech...she spoke out against the war (as did many), and has become reviled and branded a traitor. Just like the Dixie Chicks. Just like so many. Yay for self-censorship! Who needs national laws to deal with people who speak against the government when your own citizens will 'deal' with them?
By spitting on Jane Fonda the man was just exercising his freedom of expression. Much like she did when she posed on an anti-aircraft gun with her VC pals.

It doesn't matter what Jane Fonda allegedly did or didn't do, that guy doesn't have the right to spit on her for it.

By the way, why exactly do you 'hate that bitch'?

I'd be curious to know that too. None of what I know about her would motivate me into 'hating' her; quite the opposite, really. She expressed her ethical objections in the face of an unjust war, knowing what the reactions would be from warmongering masses who somehow believe democracy must be equated with single-mindedness and the repression of supposedly "unpatriotic" free speech.

Jane Fonda did more than speak out against the war. She certainly had the attention and resources to make public statements against it. She went a little further though.
She chose to actually go to the enemy in person, her prescence alone boosting our enemies morale and helping to damage that of our soldiers. Sort of like a USO tour, but for the other side. She aided and abetted the enemy. Freedom of speech would have been here in the US,taking part in a protest, etc... And she isnt sorry she did it, in her own words, she is sorry she was photographed doing it.
Did she fight against Americans? If you consider speaking out against an unjust war, or posing for photos to be 'fighting against', you have a strange view on it. Damaged the morale of American soldiers? Do you really think they majority of them would have been thinking, "oh man, maybe we're wrong about this if even Jane Fonda wants to be photographed with the enemy..."? Most likely they were cursing her, putting pictures of her up for target practice, and generally getting all agitated about it. Aided and abetted the enemy? Please. If an American celebrity went to Iraq and posed with insurgents, I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .

I think that the Vietnam war was bad, but actually going to Hanoi and endorsing the North Vietnamese was also wrong. Don't forget, the communists also committed genocide.

By spitting on Jane Fonda the man was just exercising his freedom of expression. Much like she did when she posed on an anti-aircraft gun with her VC pals.
Your freedom of expression ends where my freedom begins. Meaning you can't spit on, hit, volley objects at someone you don't agree with. If she had spit in that veteran's face, you can bet there'd be friggin' riots.

By spitting on Jane Fonda the man was just exercising his freedom of expression.

Spitting someone in the face is as much "freedom of expression" as is punching someone in the face.

I.e., it isn't.

Spitting someone in the face is as much "freedom of expression" as is punching someone in the face.

I.e., it isn't.
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I think that the Vietnam war was bad, but actually going to Hanoi and endorsing the North Vietnamese was also wrong. Don't forget, the communists also committed genocide.
And her posing for pictures helped them committ that genocide?

Can I spit in Henry Kissinger's face for helping dictators like Pinochet get into power? Would that be acceptable?(prepares a wad of phlegm if the answer is in the affirmative)

That could have been my father...

He hates her so much... vowed never to see her movies... etc.

Although I think he's missing out when it comes to "Barbarella"

Jane Fonda did more than speak out against the war. She certainly had the attention and resources to make public statements against it. She went a little further though.
She chose to actually go to the enemy in person, her prescence alone boosting our enemies morale and helping to damage that of our soldiers. Sort of like a USO tour, but for the other side. She aided and abetted the enemy. Freedom of speech would have been here in the US,taking part in a protest, etc... And she isnt sorry she did it, in her own words, she is sorry she was photographed doing it.

She did nothing to "aid" the enemy. She simply tried to get people to stop and think about the injustice and absurdity of the war, showing them, for example, a bit about the people on the other side. A bit of welcome anti-propaganda, against those demonizing the Viet-Cong.

(I'm not saying the North Vietnamese were all sweetness and light, far from it. Just like the Americans - remember My Lai? - they committed their fair share of atrocities, which no one can deny.)

She chose to actually go to the enemy in person, her prescence alone boosting our enemies morale and helping to damage that of our soldiers. Sort of like a USO tour, but for the other side. She aided and abetted the enemy. Freedom of speech would have been here in the US,taking part in a protest, etc... And she isnt sorry she did it, in her own words, she is sorry she was photographed doing it.

Seeing as how the Vietnam War wasn't technically a war, surely the Viet Cong weren't technically the enemy?

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Unfortunately for you DC, the law is going to back Fass up too.

You flag waving silly goof head.

She did nothing to "aid" the enemy. She simply tried to get people to stop and think about the injustice and absurdity of the war, showing them, for example, a bit about the people on the other side. A bit of welcome anti-propaganda, against those demonizing the Viet-Cong.
What a slap in th e face though... when you're out there getting your ass blown off for your country and some stupid celebrity is trying to pull a publicity stunt and sit in the anti-aircraft turret that has undoubtedly taken down many planes with real people inside...

She should have been doing the whole peace thing instead of the whole enemy thing

I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Not just you and me, but you and the legislative and judicial systems.

By spitting on Jane Fonda the man was just exercising his freedom of expression.

Nah:

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html

What a slap in th e face though... when you're out there getting your ass blown off for your country and some stupid celebrity is trying to pull a publicity stunt and sit in the anti-aircraft turret that has undoubtedly taken down many planes with real people inside...

She should have been doing the whole peace thing instead of the whole enemy thing
People make mistakes. Celebrating the fact that some idiot spit in her face because of that mistake is pointless.

Plenty of other celebs are out there supporting the war in Iraq, and others don't. I doesn't affect the effort one way or another. No doubt many of the soldiers who hear about celebrities not supporting what they are doing are pissed off too. Tough. That's part of what they are supposedly fighting for, the freedom to have a difference of opinion.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

Jane Fonda's actions were legally traitorous as evidenced in these pictures. The issue isn't whether the Vietnam action was right or wrong...
for Hanoi Jane to have labeled the brave US military men and women who fought and died as "liars", "baby killers" and "hypocrites" is unforgiveable. Most Nam vets would have liked to have thrown something far worse into her face.

Unfortunately for you DC, the law is going to back Fass up too.

You flag waving silly goof head.
That could be a problem. I've never had much luck getting cops and judges to "agree to disagree" with me. They're always convinced that they're right and I'm wrong and need to pay some fines or do some time. Talk about stubborn.

Yayyyy! FINALLY some payback! :D

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!

An ex-serviceman celebrating what appears to be an assault on a woman? Surely not?

Well, i certainly support Jane Fonda's opposition to the war (although manning a VC gun might be a liiiiittttle to far), and I definetly believe spitting in someone's face is not protected by the first amendment... but.....


Man, that guy has some balls. I got respect for a dude who has the guts to do something like that.

Plus Jane Fonda is stupid.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

Jane Fonda's actions were legally traitorous as evidenced in these pictures. The issue isn't whether the Vietnam action was right or wrong...
for Hanoi Jane to have labeled the brave US military men and women who fought and died as "liars", "baby killers" and "hypocrites" is unforgiveable. Most Nam vets would have liked to have thrown something far worse into her face.
What are your treason laws exactly that posing for pictures and saying dumb shit makes you a traitor? Wow...we could get a bunch of your politicians for this...

I'm sure they would like to retaliate in an unlawful manner. I am also sure that they will have to pay the legal price for that unlawful action.

That could be a problem. I've never had much luck getting cops and judges to "agree to disagree" with me. They're always convinced that they're right and I'm wrong and need to pay some fines or do some time. Talk about stubborn.
Bastards! If only they gave you the chance to change their minds... :p

DC...hmmm...like WASHINGTON DC? Are you some sort of government agent?

And her posing for pictures helped them committ that genocide?

Can I spit in Henry Kissinger's face for helping dictators like Pinochet get into power? Would that be acceptable?(prepares a wad of phlegm if the answer is in the affirmative)
no sinuhue you cant, its not right

all we can do is hope that some day the old bastard will be charged with crimes against humanity.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!

Forrest, as much as I detest Jane Fonda and her politics, I can't condone assault. I think she should have pressed charges and Mr. Smith should have stood trial. Remember how many pies conservatives have been assaulted with lately.

Having said that, Ms Fonda-Hayden-Turner should have been charged with treason and stood trial, as well.

I think a fair jury might have acquitted Mr. Smith.

What a slap in th e face though... when you're out there getting your ass blown off for your country and some stupid celebrity is trying to pull a publicity stunt and sit in the anti-aircraft turret that has undoubtedly taken down many planes with real people inside...

She should have been doing the whole peace thing instead of the whole enemy thing

I think that's the point. Posing with the insurgents with Iraq is not raising the flag of peace but instead perpetuating the validity of war. No one said, "lay down your guns! The VC are wonderful people! Look how cute their AA guns are!" What she did was significantly different than, say, feeding the children of Iraq or North and South Viet Nam. There were better ways to support peace and the way she did it was hateful. I personally don't agree with celebrities posing with troops and their weapons.

Seperate from that point spitting is assualt and should be treated as such.

no sinuhue you cant, its not right

all we can do is hope that some day the old bastard will be charged with crimes against humanity.
:(

Eut...please tell me that spitting in Henry Kissinger's face would be as nice in your view as what this man did to Jane Fonda....

Did she fight against Americans? If you consider speaking out against an unjust war, or posing for photos to be 'fighting against', you have a strange view on it. Damaged the morale of American soldiers? Do you really think they majority of them would have been thinking, "oh man, maybe we're wrong about this if even Jane Fonda wants to be photographed with the enemy..."? Most likely they were cursing her, putting pictures of her up for target practice, and generally getting all agitated about it. Aided and abetted the enemy? Please. If an American celebrity went to Iraq and posed with insurgents, I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .


She rallied their troops. Its not my view or opinion-its a fact. I was a child when this happened. This is what thousands of soldiers said and hundreds of thousands of people that supported the soldiers back home. Its not speculation, its fact. She could have stayed here and used her notariety to speak out against the war and protest. I have no problem with that.
I dont like her for what she did. And I dont even feel she is a good actress, but thats besdies the point.

Jane Fonda's actions were legally traitorous as evidenced in these pictures. The issue isn't whether the Vietnam action was right or wrong...

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Photos are not the same thing as 'two Witnesses'. So much for your claim that her actions can be proved to be legally treasonous/traitorous, unless you can provide those two witnesses. Never mind the fact that the actual status of the Vietnam action clouds the issue of whether the Viet Cong can be classed as 'Enemies'.

The POWs Fonda visited and humiliated tried to pass messages to the US by slipping her folded up scraps of paper.

Fonda promptly gave the papers to her North Vietnamese "handler."

The POWs were retaliated against by their captors in a severe and brutal manner.

That's enough.

And her posing for pictures helped them committ that genocide?
No, but she really should not have associated with them at all.
Can I spit in Henry Kissinger's face for helping dictators like Pinochet get into power? Would that be acceptable?(prepares a wad of phlegm if the answer is in the affirmative)
Sinuhue, prepare your wad!

Although I think he's missing out when it comes to "Barbarella"
That film is so trippy, surely one of the most (unintentionally?) funniest films ever!

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Photos are not the same thing as 'two Witnesses'. So much for your claim that her actions can be proved to be legally treasonous/traitorous, unless you can provide those two witnesses. Never mind the fact that the actual status of the Vietnam action clouds the issue of whether the Viet Cong can be classed as 'Enemies'.
There was much more substance to her visits in North Vietnam than just the photo op at the AA guns. She definitely made some radio broadcasts that praised the NV and labeled Americans as war criminals. That sure seems like verifiable evidence of treason.

This story bothers me quite a bit, too

They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. *Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his SSN on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

She took them all without missing a beat. **
At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.


Jane Fonda was named one of the 100 "Women of the Century" by Ladies Home Journal.

The POWs Fonda visited and humiliated tried to pass messages to the US by slipping her folded up scraps of paper.

Fonda promptly gave the papers to her North Vietnamese "handler."

The POWs were retaliated against by their captors in a severe and brutal manner.

That's enough.
Snopes downplays that part of her visit. The grounds for treason are more likely the radio broadcasts she made for the enemy. Tokyo Rose was tried and convicted for treason in WW2, only to be pardoned by Gerald Ford.

I'd be curious to know that too. None of what I know about her would motivate me into 'hating' her; quite the opposite, really. She expressed her ethical objections in the face of an unjust war, knowing what the reactions would be from warmongering masses who somehow believe democracy must be equated with single-mindedness and the repression of supposedly "unpatriotic" free speech.
Hanoi Jane was far, far more than just "expressing herself!" Good men died because of her. She and the likes of John Kerry encouraged the North Vietnamese to hang on in the hope that they could win the publicity war.

Jane Fonda was named one of the 100 "Women of the Century" by Ladies Home Journal.
Doesn't say much for Ladies Home Journal. :(

Doesn't say much for Ladies Home Journal. :(

I haven't read the complete list of the 100 Women, but does LHJ explain why Jane was selected? If nothing else, I would think she would make the list of "100 Controversial Women of the Century".

She did nothing to "aid" the enemy. She simply tried to get people to stop and think about the injustice and absurdity of the war, showing them, for example, a bit about the people on the other side. A bit of welcome anti-propaganda, against those demonizing the Viet-Cong.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's unadulterated bullshit!

You almost had to live through those turbulent days in order to understand. Try putting yourself in the place of a soldier being shot at on a daily basis with your friends being killed rigth before your eyes. Then here comes the sweet Miz. Fonda over your radio, talking about how wonderful are those people you fight, and how they're really fighting for their feedom and how all the US forces are evil. Then you read where some American POWs were tortured after Miz. Fonda gave a note one of them tried to pass to her to her North Vietnamese "handlers."

Huh, I would have thought that this would gotten a little more praise then it has. Good job Mr. Smith. She deserved it, even if the law says otherwise.

Huh, I would have thought that this would gotten a little more praise then it has. Good job Mr. Smith. She deserved it, even if the law says otherwise.
I won't say what I think about why it hasn't gotten any more accolades. :(

I won't say what I think about why it hasn't gotten any more accolades. :(

The reason is obvious to the older posters on here. So many of the people on here can only base their opinions on today's environment. They don't have the basis to understand the devastating impact of Fonda's actions. The vets were coming home to protests and disrespect, and she not only added fuel to that fire, she did it in the enemy's camp. Her dad is the only reason she isn't in prison for treason now.

Living in a world of wealth and priviledge she was not accessible to the scorn of the vets... one of them was finally able to put the thoughts and feelings of many into action.

The reason is obvious to the older posters on here. So many of the people on here can only base their opinions on today's environment. They don't have the basis to understand the devastating impact of Fonda's actions. The vets were coming home to protests and disrespect, and she not only added fuel to that fire, she did it in the enemy's camp. Her dad is the only reason she isn't in prison for treason now.
Which only goes to show there really is no true justice in the world. Here I am, a disabled veteran who served well and honorably living from week to week on a small pension, while Hanoi Jane sits in some palatial mansion living off the procedes of her books and videos. Sigh.

It does seem she got this part right in her radio address:

One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I've been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he'll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo- colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way.


EDIT: Having been in a long thread about the Civil War, I have no doubt it will be a long time before we get over the divisions over the Vietnam War. There was nastiness on both the pro-war and anti-war sides. Ms. Fonda did and said some really stupid and ugly things -- evil things. She was also right about some things. And she has been slandered with lots of false accusations about things she didn't do or say. She has apologized for a fair amount of what she did and said. She hasn't apologized for all of it. At least some of that she shouldn't apologize for.

I take with more than a grain of salt the "treason" and "aid and abet" the enemy charges from those who have said anyone that protests a war after it starts is guilty of those things. Regardless, Ms. Fonda was not guilty of treason. That is simply ridiculous.

The treatment of Vietnam veterans at the time was a disgrace. It still is to a certain degree.

I can understand the spitter's motives. It was still wrong to do.

The reason is obvious to the older posters on here. So many of the people on here can only base their opinions on today's environment. They don't have the basis to understand the devastating impact of Fonda's actions. The vets were coming home to protests and disrespect, and she not only added fuel to that fire, she did it in the enemy's camp. Her dad is the only reason she isn't in prison for treason now.

Living in a world of wealth and priviledge she was not accessible to the scorn of the vets... one of them was finally able to put the thoughts and feelings of many into action.
Be that as it may, her actions entitle you to any opinon you wish of her - but I hardly think they qualify the type of reaction she received by having been spat on.

No matter how you look at it, it was a childish act and in no way does it help to make any sort of point. In plain fact, it may do more harm for your cause (against the actions of Fonda) to endorse or condone this type of behaviour. This type of battle is won with intelligence - not random and rude acts of distatsteful behaviour.

Spitting on people, like throwing stuff at people does not rank high in my list of forms of political expression. This fellow gets the same response as the person who chucked a shoe at Dick Cheney. Chill, kill the person with civility, and you become the automatic moral victor, well, not kill, but be civil in response to things you don't like.

Now, don't get me wrong, I really don't like what Jane Fonda did in Vietnam, but as always, I'm going to say take the moral high ground.

Spitting on people, like throwing stuff at people does not rank high in my list of forms of political expression. This fellow gets the same response as the person who chucked a shoe at Dick Cheney. Chill, kill the person with civility, and you become the automatic moral victor, well, not kill, but be civil in response to things you don't like.

Now, don't get me wrong, I really don't like what Jane Fonda did in Vietnam, but as always, I'm going to say take the moral high ground.
There was no "moral high ground" in this particular conflict ( the conflict between the soldiers and the protestors ). It was hateful, mean, and ugly. I won't say what I would like to do to Hanoi Jane, but it definitely would not be pleasant. :(

It doesn't matter what Jane Fonda allegedly did or didn't do, that guy doesn't have the right to spit on her for it.

There's nothing "alleged" about her actions during the Vietnam War. There were photos taken in the days before Photoshop, and she admits to having posed for them.

I'd call it an even trade - one wad of spit for one photo. There are more photos, and plenty of egregiously offensive statements she made during the war - statements that men serving overseas (and their families) would find severely demoralizing and highly offensive.

Nothing "alleged". A lot of truth.

There was no "moral high ground" in this particular conflict ( the conflict between the soldiers and the protestors ). It was hateful, mean, and ugly. I won't say what I would like to do to Hanoi Jane, but it definitely would not be pleasant. :(
The moral high ground would be to not sink down to a level where you find yourself spitting in someones face or otherwise. Reaction gains no ground other than smug self righteous defiance (and that gets you no where in the long run). Civility is the answer, not this sort of childish, immature, petty garbage. Assuming for the moment that I agree with you about Fonda (and in reality, I was not alive at the time and so have no basis to argue the case right or wrong in her favour or yours) but assuming that I agree with your standpoint, if I were to spit in her face I would only make her a martyr and give her points that much more validification - not to mention further villifying everyone on my side.

There's nothing "alleged" about her actions during the Vietnam War. There were photos taken in the days before Photoshop, and she admits to having posed for them.

I'd call it an even trade - one wad of spit for one photo. There are more photos, and plenty of egregiously offensive statements she made during the war - statements that men serving overseas (and their families) would find severely demoralizing and highly offensive.

Nothing "alleged". A lot of truth.

That's not my point. My point is that that man does not have the right to spit on her because of what she did. If she committed treason, and I will admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, then she can be prosecuted by the government. But he isn't allowed to do to her whatever he thinks she deserves just because she did something he did not approve.

That's not my point. My point is that that man does not have the right to spit on her because of what she did. If she committed treason, and I will admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, then she can be prosecuted by the government. But he isn't allowed to do to her whatever he thinks she deserves just because she did something he did not approve.

Sounds like an act of protest to me.

Besides, I know many who would be willing, when she dies of natural old age, to pour a bottle of champagne on her grave (after they drink it, of course).

Sounds like an act of protest to me.

Besides, I know many who would be willing, when she dies of natural old age, to pour a bottle of champagne on her grave (after they drink it, of course).

Well, public indecency is a crime, so if they get caught, I'd imagine they'd be arrested. I doubt just pouring the champagne on the grave would be a crime (unless they were trespassing, as she's probably got the kind of cash to be buried in some fancy-ass cemetary).

Acts of aggression towards other people should not be allowed as "acts of protest".

I'm sure all the Nam vets would have erupted into a national cheer if the guy had pulled out a handgun and capped her instead of just spitting.

:rolleyes:

The only thing I have to say is that given the attitude of most people who express support for highly emotional (yet not very mature) attitudes is that you should get the government to repeal all laws. Then you can do whatever you think is right without persecution. So too can your neighbor. Who might have a gun. But don't worry, you can shoot him first if he looks at you funny.

No laws see?

Well, public indecency is a crime, so if they get caught, I'd imagine they'd be arrested. I doubt just pouring the champagne on the grave would be a crime (unless they were trespassing, as she's probably got the kind of cash to be buried in some fancy-ass cemetary).

Acts of aggression towards other people should not be allowed as "acts of protest".

The Left is allowed to throw pies. I fail to see the problem with the Right spitting on people.

The Left is allowed to throw pies. I fail to see the problem with the Right spitting on people.

Yeah, because this is clearly a liberal vs. conservative conflict. :rolleyes:

People who throw pies, eggs, loogies, dice, feces, flaming feces, fists, pants, or anything else you can think of, at another person should be charged with whatever misdemeanor assault or battery or whatever crime it is. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can assault them.

The Left is allowed to throw pies. I fail to see the problem with the Right spitting on people.
First of all, the left or the right aren't actually allowed to throw pies. It is an offense punishable by law in both Canada and the United States. This is not an issue of right vs. left - this is an issue of one person, whether in protest or not, spitting in someones face. By the rationale given here, I would be equally justified for spitting in the face of every American politician who fucked over my province during the softwood lumber fiasco - how many problems do you think that would solve? Its not protest, its merely an act of immaturity and degradation - nothing more, nothing less.

Of course the guy should be charged. He did commit a crime, after all. Even he admitted so.

That being said, he still did the right wing. That traitor whore Jane Fonda should have been prosecuted under treason charges, not given a friggin' book tour! I would do the same thing as the man did, and happily take whatever punishment given to me.

Tobacco spitting man, I salute you!

He should have bought her book..had her sign it...spit on her signature then burned it in front of the bookstore.

That's not my point. My point is that that man does not have the right to spit on her because of what she did. If she committed treason, and I will admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, then she can be prosecuted by the government. But he isn't allowed to do to her whatever he thinks she deserves just because she did something he did not approve.
Oh. But it's not only ok for protestors to spit on me, but ok for apologists to deny it even happened? What's wrong with this picture?

Oh. But it's not only ok for protestors to spit on me, but ok for apologists to deny it even happened? What's wrong with this picture?

Yeah, go and point out where I said that it was okay for protestors to spit on you. Go ahead. I dare you.

Oh. But it's not only ok for protestors to spit on me, but ok for apologists to deny it even happened? What's wrong with this picture?
Who's saying that it never happened? Better still, how does this guy-or celebrating this guy-make that better/different at all? Didn't he just say-in the post you quoted that it wasn't okay?

Yeah, go and point out where I said that it was okay for protestors to spit on you. Go ahead. I dare you.
I ddin't say you said that. It was more in the nature of a rhetorical question. Sorry.

EDIT: Obviously, I get rather ... exercised about this. Call it a weakness.

I ddin't say you said that. It was more in the nature of a rhetorical question. Sorry.

EDIT: Obviously, I get rather ... exercised about this. Call it a weakness.

Well, in that case, no, it's not okay for protestors to spit on you. Apologists are different, though; you can't punish someone for their beliefs, no matter how misguided. Look at Holocaust deniers, for instance.

Oh. But it's not only ok for protestors to spit on me, but ok for apologists to deny it even happened? What's wrong with this picture?
No its not ok, no one said that Eut - and you know it.

No one is denying that what protesters did was wrong - but if you lower yourself to that level, I do not differenciate between the two, regardless of who did what first.

Do you remember getting into fights on the school ground, and some little fuckers justification was 'but he hit me first!!'... do you remember how that went? Its pathetic, immature, and self righteous to give someone accolade for performing this kind of act.

Who's saying that it never happened? Better still, how does this guy-or celebrating this guy-make that better/different at all? Didn't he just say-in the post you quoted that it wasn't okay?
there really needs to be a study on exactly how much of this spitting on vietnam vets coming home actually happened. i'm sure there were isolated incidents, but i just can imagine it was that common. i'd assume that the vets usually kicked the asses of the spitters so i can't imagine any one protester did it more than a couple of times, and i can't imagine most of them thought it was a good idea to begin with.

I think Lewis Black made a good point when he said, "Just because you're against war does NOT mean you're for the other side. If we see someone with a sign saying, 'Go, Iraq Go!' we can go 'Holy shit!' and beat the hell out of him." Jane Fonda's intentions, it seems, was to protest war, not support North Vietnam. She went to Hanoi in an attempt to humanize them. Then she got her picture taken with their weaponry. What a dumb bitch. Hehehe.

However, and here where my problem with her is, she helped to make public and popular the hatred of american troops returning from Vietnam. Perhaps unintentionally, but that hardly matters. Because of public figures like her, returning veterans were harassed, ostracised and ignored. Because of people like her, many veterans never did and never will receive the kind of post-war physical and mental health care they needed. I don't think she understands the kind of damage she did, and it's something she hasn't apologized for.

As to pie throwing, I'm for it. :)
Spitting doesn't qualify though because it's not a baked good.

actually, disregarding the waste factor, if the offending pie was a well made and tasty key lime or apple pie, I'd be all for it!

was the anti aircraft battery a soviet 23mm gun, cuz i think those were cool, i'd be photographed in one of those bad boys in a minute.

there really needs to be a study on exactly how much of this spitting on vietnam vets coming home actually happened. i'm sure there were isolated incidents, but i just can imagine it was that common. i'd assume that the vets usually kicked the asses of the spitters so i can't imagine any one protester did it more than a couple of times, and i can't imagine most of them thought it was a good idea to begin with.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1005224/

EDIT: This article furthers the myth that servicemen weren't spat upon when we returned from Vietnam. How do I know it's a myth? Because I was one of those spat upon and called "a baby killer." All this sort of article does is keep open wounds which should have healed long, long ago.

there really needs to be a study on exactly how much of this spitting on vietnam vets coming home actually happened. i'm sure there were isolated incidents, but i just can imagine it was that common. i'd assume that the vets usually kicked the asses of the spitters so i can't imagine any one protester did it more than a couple of times, and i can't imagine most of them thought it was a good idea to begin with.
Here's the thing-I don't doubt it happened, and I don't doubt it happened a lot-and even if it happened a little it's not okay. For reasons stated.

And for another reason, which LG touched on-

It has allowed for the characterization of being against a war as being for the other side, or at the very least, against the troops. It is that characterization-that notion-that has allowed the voice of protest to be limited, passed aside and dismissed. And it's ridiculous.

In the link given, the 'damning text' Fonda blames Nixon. In the 'damning text' of Kerry's testimony, he blames congress. They are holding the decission makers responsable for putting the soldiers in an unwarranted position, risking and using them unneccisarily.

Here's my question-Vietnam fell. North overtook the south, 'we' lost. And yet the dominos didn't fall with it-asia did not collapse into communism and start the world down the red path. Nothing happened. A civil war in a small asian country simply went one way instead of another. Where is the anger at the people who really got soldiers killed? Not esotericly, but really and demonstably killed? Where is the spit in the face of Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, the policy makers, the people who sent the soldiers to die in a war unneccisarily? Why do they get a pass? Why aren't they held responsable? If you cared, really cared, about the troops you'd care that they where only asked to sacrafice when it is absolutely neccisary, and to hold those who risk them unneccisarilly where held responsable.

Here's the thing-I don't doubt it happened, and I don't doubt it happened a lot-and even if it happened a little it's not okay. For reasons stated.

And for another reason, which LG touched on-

It has allowed for the characterization of being against a war as being for the other side, or at the very least, against the troops. It is that characterization-that notion-that has allowed the voice of protest to be limited, passed aside and dismissed. And it's ridiculous.

In the link given, the 'damning text' Fonda blames Nixon. In the 'damning text' of Kerry's testimony, he blames congress. They are holding the decission makers responsable for putting the soldiers in an unwarranted position, risking and using them unneccisarily.

Here's my question-Vietnam fell. North overtook the south, 'we' lost. And yet the dominos didn't fall with it-asia did not collapse into communism and start the world down the red path. Nothing happened. A civil war in a small asian country simply went one way instead of another. Where is the anger at the people who really got soldiers killed? Not esotericly, but really and demonstably killed? Where is the spit in the face of Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, the policy makers, the people who sent the soldiers to die in a war unneccisarily? Why do they get a pass? Why aren't they held responsable? If you cared, really cared, about the troops you'd care that they where only asked to sacrafice when it is absolutely neccisary, and to hold those who risk them unneccisarilly where held responsable.
Hanoi Jane held the soldiers personally responsible just like most of the protestors. Yes, she railed against the administration for making bad decisions, but it is a fact that she held us personally responsible because we didn't run to Canada or self-immolate, or whatever.

I did my share of railing against the politicians as well, but after I was released from active duty and no longer in the military. Two wrongs, however, definitely do not make a right and what Hanoi Jane did only added to the mistakes by politicians ... both hurt us, and the hurt has lasted over half a life-time.

As to why more soldiers didn't strike those who spit on them, it's not the way we were raised in that day and age ... literally. When that little cutie spat on me and called me "a baby-killer," I was so shocked that it never even ocurred to me to strike back. I was stunned into silence. And that's the God's truth.

http://svsm.org/albums/ZU-23/PICT0504.jpg


http://www.youngamerica.org/fonda_pic.jpg


it looks like it might have been a 23mm gun.

so sites claim this gun as actually used to shoot down american planes, but i kinda doubt any one 23mm cannon would have taken out the high altitude bomber that were used on hanoi. the 23 was hell on low flying planes and helocopters, but i just doubt it was more that a blind prayer against b52s.

it looks like it might have been a 23mm gun.

so sites claim this gun as actually used to shoot down american planes, but i kinda doubt any one 23mm cannon would have taken out the high altitude bomber that were used on hanoi. the 23 was hell on low flying planes and helocopters, but i just doubt it was more that a blind prayer against b52s.
So what's your point? Taking out specific targets like bridges and SAM sites was de riguer during the war. This required low-level flight. Seems like you made the point that Hanoi Jane's anti-aircraft gun would have done the job quite well.

Hanoi Jane held the soldiers personally responsible just like most of the protestors. Yes, she railed against the administration for making bad decisions, but it is a fact that she held us personally responsible because we didn't run to Canada or self-immolate, or whatever.

And there it is...(first bold mine). But going on the 'damning text' on the site given, and this a an anti-Jane Fonda link, I only saw her blame the administration. And she didn't do it while on active duty, so she meets one of your self-supplied criteria.

So, I don't want this on 'common knowledge.' I've seen the protestors condemned-but the only thing I ever see from the military side is 'you wouldn't let us win.' Win is irrelevant, even if we 'won' the threat wasn't real. (in regards to Vietnam). It's sending the soldiers in the first place. Heres the thing-I'm not going to make excuses for her-but show me. Because in what I've looked at that I've been shown, its just been the administration.

And, if two wrongs don't make a right, why the hope for applause for this guy? Is it because three wrongs do make a right? It seems a little inconsistant.

Good, that bitch deserved it.

So much for free speech...she spoke out against the war (as did many), and has become reviled and branded a traitor. Just like the Dixie Chicks. Just like so many. Yay for self-censorship! Who needs national laws to deal with people who speak against the government when your own citizens will 'deal' with them?

surely you can see the contradiction here

person A can protest in favor of one view and its a first amendment right but when person B counter-protests that opinion in favor of their view they're bordering on the edge of facism?

surely you can see the contradiction here

person A can protest in favor of one view and its a first amendment right but when person B counter-protests that opinion in favor of their view they're bordering on the edge of facism?

No contradiction. When person A protests vocally in favor of one view, it's a first amendment right. When person B counter-protests physically against that view, it's assault.

And there it is...(first bold mine). But going on the 'damning text' on the site given, and this a an anti-Jane Fonda link, I only saw her blame the administration. And she didn't do it while on active duty, so she meets one of your self-supplied criteria.

So, I don't want this on 'common knowledge.' I've seen the protestors condemned-but the only thing I ever see from the military side is 'you wouldn't let us win.' Win is irrelevant, even if we 'won' the threat wasn't real. (in regards to Vietnam). It's sending the soldiers in the first place. Heres the thing-I'm not going to make excuses for her-but show me. Because in what I've looked at that I've been shown, its just been the administration.

And, if two wrongs don't make a right, why the hope for applause for this guy? Is it because three wrongs do make a right? It seems a little inconsistant.
"Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions."

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

No contradiction. When person A protests vocally in favor of one view, it's a first amendment right. When person B counter-protests physically against that view, it's assault.
Spitting on someone is technically a battery, as the veteran who spat on Hanoi Jane avered. So if, without threatening her, I walked up to Hanoi Jane and slapped the dog-shit out of her, that would also be a battery. Conclusion: she got off easy.

Spitting on someone is technically a battery, as the veteran who spat on Hanoi Jane avered. So if, without threatening her, I walked up to Hanoi Jane and slapped the dog-shit out of her, that would also be a battery. Conclusion: she got off easy.

Ah, battery. My mistake. Either way, he did something illegal, and should be punished as such. Just like those idiots who get naked and paint shit on themselves to make political statements.

Ah, battery. My mistake. Either way, he did something illegal, and should be punished as such. Just like those idiots who get naked and paint shit on themselves to make political statements.
The moral of that story is: if you aren't willing to do the time, then don't do the crime.

The moral of that story is: if you aren't willing to do the time, then don't do the crime.

If the guy is willing to do time (and I doubt he'll get much more than a fine and community service), then more power to him if he thinks he's making a statement. Personally, he looks like a man who is of inferior intellect and is unable to articulate his displeasure with Jane Fonda and had to instead resort to violence (unlike my esteemed colleague Eutrusca, who is very much able to wield words).

Just like those idiots who get naked and paint shit on themselves to make political statements.

As opposed to us that do it for fun and profit. :)

As opposed to us that do it for fun and profit. :)

Indeed, as opposed to you and me last Saturday. :D

If the guy is willing to do time (and I doubt he'll get much more than a fine and community service), then more power to him if he thinks he's making a statement. Personally, he looks like a man who is of inferior intellect and is unable to articulate his displeasure with Jane Fonda and had to instead resort to violence (unlike my esteemed colleague Eutrusca, who is very much able to wield words).
LOL! Uh huh. But don't you think you should refrain from negative character judgments based solely on appearance? If you met me, just based on the way I look, you would think I was some sort of trained killer ... um ... wait. :confused:

LOL! Uh huh. But don't you think you should refrain from negative character judgments based solely on appearance? If you met me, just based on the way I look, you would think I was some sort of trained killer ... um ... wait. :confused:

Trained killers are the best kind. Last thing I want is someone doing a half-assed job of it.

"Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions."

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
I found this-
Jane Fonda handed over to their captors the slips of paper POWs pressed upon her: False.
-interseting, seeing as how that claim has popped up in the this thread.

But is really not here nor there, but does lead in nicely...

I'm lost as to the point now. You've already conceeded that two wrongs don't make a right, so this guy does not deserve your praise.

I still don't have direct quoting (but I have to go back and check sourced from the scopes link at the library) of her saying it, and asking for it was a bit of a sidetrack on my part...the notion is that using this to create the notion that being against a war is for the enemy, or against the troops. From what I see in the complaints against Fonda it seems to me that the people who really derserve the scorn are the ones getting off 'scott free.' When are they 'finally' going to get some payback?

So what's your point? Taking out specific targets like bridges and SAM sites was de riguer during the war. This required low-level flight. Seems like you made the point that Hanoi Jane's anti-aircraft gun would have done the job quite well.

okay you may have a point, but those twin 23s are just so damn cool

Trained killers are the best kind. Last thing I want is someone doing a half-assed job of it.

i appreciate the well motivated amatuer, professions can be rather cold and don't always put their hearts into the bloodshed, it just sorta turns into a job.

I found this-

-interseting, seeing as how that claim has popped up in the this thread.

But is really not here nor there, but does lead in nicely...

I'm lost as to the point now. You've already conceeded that two wrongs don't make a right, so this guy does not deserve your praise.

I still don't have direct quoting (but I have to go back and check sourced from the scopes link at the library) of her saying it, and asking for it was a bit of a sidetrack on my part...the notion is that using this to create the notion that being against a war is for the enemy, or against the troops. From what I see in the complaints against Fonda it seems to me that the people who really derserve the scorn are the ones getting off 'scott free.' When are they 'finally' going to get some payback?
Unless those against the current war in Iraq take to abusing the soldiers as their predecessors did us, I have no problem with them protesting. I have a visceral dislike of protesters, but that's just a hold-over of my feelings from after Vietnam.

I suppose one thing that makes me react positively to this veteran's act is a lingering frustration with myself that I didn't do anything when confronted with the spitting and name-calling and other acts during and after Vietnam.

By the way ... there's no way to do effective scorn against a dead man, and Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon are all dead, last time I heard.

i appreciate the well motivated amatuer, professions can be rather cold and don't always put their hearts into the bloodshed, it just sorta turns into a job.

Thats because it is. Professional killers do it for money. You see they are service providers. You contact them, set up a contract, they perform a service, you pay them.

Just like any other job in the world, except its illegal in just about most countries unless government sanctioned. Even then thats called unofficial work. Oh, unless your working in the armed forces. But thats a job too.

okay you may have a point, but those twin 23s are just so damn cool
You should look up the old Twin 44's ( I think that's the correct calibre ), or the Quad 50's we used in Vietman.

Unless those against the current war in Iraq take to abusing the soldiers as their predecessors did us, I have no problem with them protesting. I have a visceral dislike of protesters, but that's just a hold-over of my feelings from after Vietnam.
Then the lesson here, again, is to hold the individual responsable for the individual and not the whole. What frustrate me to no end is the arguements, if proper names removed, would be indistiguishable. You are upset. Someone took an action, perhaps isolated perhaps not, that was deplorable and since you where also in the same 'group' held you responsable. Frustrating. I can see that. So your response is to do the very same thing? To hold a visceral dislike because of individuals actions? Doesn't that make you just as bad in that regard? Maybe-and this will be a big step-that it should be individuals that you hold responsable, not bogeymen like 'leftists' and 'liberals' and 'protestors', give that centrist claim some legs.

Now, to give you credit, in this instance, in a round about way, you are doing that-after all the subject here is Fonda and anything else is a sidetrack.

I suppose one thing that makes me react positively to this veteran's act is a lingering frustration with myself that I didn't do anything when confronted with the spitting and name-calling and other acts during and after Vietnam.

See, if you had reacted it still would not have held up to your stated docturine. It's still a second wrong that would not make a right. You could have confronted him, perhaps stressed the seperation between some and all, etc. But really-think it through. Had you attacked the man you most certainly would have mopped the floor with him. Thats not flattery, thats just the most reasonable scenario. What would it have accomplished? How would it read that a vet comes home, gets off the plane and first thing he does is wail on a hippie? Do you think you would have been helping? Would you have been 'right?' Do you think he would even felt different about spitting on you? He'd still think you where a monster, and now he'd have the broken nose to prove it. At least to him.

By the way ... there's no way to do effective scorn against a dead man, and Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon are all dead, last time I heard.
Cute.

However, you know what I mean, and there are plenty of others still around and plenty of others that are in charge now that are doing the same thing.

This is where your frustration should be. Why would they let you take the hit on thier mistake? Anyone who spitted, dick. Anyone that sent you to die on bullshit, bigger dick in my book. That seems natural.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!
Fascinating. You "hate this bitch" who has spoken out against the war. Do you hate all people who speak out against the war (?), because that would negate your belief that "there are very very few people that you truly hate."
I could say I hate Bush. I have no qualms about saying that, because as far as I'm concerned, he's happy to sacrifice the lives of American and allied soldiers for his own political motivation. The reasoning behind the War on Terror is a farce - research some material outside of the Dept of State press releases and you might have a more rounded view on the situation. I don't respect someone who undermines soldier morale, because I see that as attacking the pawns in the game, not the decision maker (Bush). Still, I don't think spitting is an appropriate, civilised way of expressing freedom of speech. And I don't condone such behaviour, regardless of its motivation, because it degrades his argument, and thereby degrades the discussion. "Payback" isn't justice. It makes you feel good, but it doesn't fix the situation. "Payback" is why so many US troops are being put in danger in an illegal war. But then I'm Australian. Maybe we value life differently over here.

She did nothing to "aid" the enemy. She simply tried to get people to stop and think about the injustice and absurdity of the war, showing them, for example, a bit about the people on the other side. A bit of welcome anti-propaganda, against those demonizing the Viet-Cong.

(I'm not saying the North Vietnamese were all sweetness and light, far from it. Just like the Americans - remember My Lai? - they committed their fair share of atrocities, which no one can deny.)


She aided the enemy by making several radio broadcasts targeting Amercian troops, trying to convince them they were war criminals. She visited American POWs and then reported that they were being well cared for-which we all know is total and absolute bullshit.
If that isnt helping the enemy, I dont know what is. Try to open your eyes.

Which only goes to show there really is no true justice in the world. Here I am, a disabled veteran who served well and honorably living from week to week on a small pension, while Hanoi Jane sits in some palatial mansion living off the procedes of her books and videos. Sigh.


Another odd thing about this contemptable douche- when the war was over, her concern for all the babies being killed ended too. She eiter didnt hear or more likely, didnt care about some events that followed with these people she loved so much in Cambodia. I guess her fight was only against the "blue eyed devils" bombing babies, but when they were hacked to death by other asians, it was ok with her. maybe she was too busy with her career.

If it is true that Fonda passed on POWs' messages to the North Vietnamese, then that's indeed despicable and unforgivable. So far, though, nobody has offered evidence that she did, and it seems that story relies on the testimony of one man.

Regarding the website (http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm) Zooke provided:

It was interesting to read Fonda's broadcast, and I applaud most of what she said in it. There's nothing wrong with stating an opinion, and facts, that go against the supposed justifications for a war, and that enable people to become aware of who the people they're fighting really are.

That webpage begins to reveal its true agendum towards the end, though:

Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths.

We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.

Americans must realize that there are agents* operating in this Country attempting to undermine our Country and it's leadership through our democratic principles in an effort to achieve a foreign country's goal. A prime example of such a person during the Vietnam War was Jane Fonda, an admitted Socialist, who blatantly supported North Vietnam. * Agent - Any person who works to obtain the goals of another nation either for money or for their own political beliefs.


In other words, to oppose the war, says this website, is to support the enemies of your country. That statement is made even more disgusting by the fact that this war was instigated by the US, and that the US was attacking a foreign country, not the reverse. Those brave American soldiers died because they were sent by their own government into an unjust war, and the responsability for their deaths lays squarely with the government that sent them, for no valid reason whatsoever, to be killed. Then again, I think that quote speaks for itself, and I find it sickening in its expectation of unquestioning loyalty to war, its wish to silent all dissent as not only unpatriotic but treasonous.

To make my position perfectly clear, I object to those who would label all US soldiers who fought in Vietnam as murderers. There were many abominable acts carried out by some US forces, but most of those soldiers were merely doing what they had been forced to do, fuelled what is more by virulent anti-communist propaganda. The war was blatantly wrong, but I find it difficult to blame it on the soldiers.

Which only goes to show there really is no true justice in the world. Here I am, a disabled veteran who served well and honorably living from week to week on a small pension, while Hanoi Jane sits in some palatial mansion living off the procedes of her books and videos. Sigh.


Yeah-but you can live with yourself and your actions. She might have cash, but deep in her desperate-self loathing heart, she'll never truly feel good about herself. She is garbage and she knows it. She has half appologized.

First of all, Jane Fonda didn't break ANY laws, if she had, she would of had her ass in jail. At the time, the dress wearing head of the F.B.I. Hoover had a file on her and was just waiting for her to do some thing illegal so he could pounce on her.

Second, Jane Fonda has said sorry over and over again for her actions in Vietnam. She has never said sorry for not supporting the war, than again the majority of Americans to this day feel it was a mistake. So, she stands with the majority. However, as stated she DID say sorry.

What more do you want from her?

Second, Jane Fonda has said sorry over and over again for her actions in Vietnam.

No, she didn't say it over and over again. She never said she was sorry until she decided to publish this book, tested the waters, and wanted to make sure it sold.

Which only goes to show there really is no true justice in the world. Here I am, a disabled veteran who served well and honorably living from week to week on a small pension, while Hanoi Jane sits in some palatial mansion living off the procedes of her books and videos. Sigh.

You were a solider, she was born into money and earned a lot of her own money and married a guy who was rich, just like she was rich. Just because you have not in your life had the ability or whatever to make the money as Jane Fonda doesn't make it unfair. You chose the path in life you wanted to take, she chose hers'. Don't get all up in arms because some one you "hate" has more money than you. You knew what you were getting yourself into and from all the posts I have ever seen you post you sound proud of it. So quit yer bitching that you have no money and she's rich. She would of been rich either way.

Did she fight against Americans? If you consider speaking out against an unjust war, or posing for photos to be 'fighting against', you have a strange view on it. Damaged the morale of American soldiers? Do you really think they majority of them would have been thinking, "oh man, maybe we're wrong about this if even Jane Fonda wants to be photographed with the enemy..."? Most likely they were cursing her, putting pictures of her up for target practice, and generally getting all agitated about it. Aided and abetted the enemy? Please. If an American celebrity went to Iraq and posed with insurgents, I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .

If an American celebrity posed with insurgents (the people that are killing Americans) yes, that would make them a traitor as well : rolleyes

If an American celebrity posed with insurgents (the people that are killing Americans) yes, that would make them a traitor as well : rolleyes
Give Sean Penn some time.

No, she didn't say it over and over again. She never said she was sorry until she decided to publish this book, tested the waters, and wanted to make sure it sold.

Are you a mind reader? No? Me either. We don't know why she said sorry and what you say is pure speculation. All we do know is she did say sorry. What her motives were no one knows but her. She has sold many books over the years and made a ton of money from books & movies and never said sorry. So, I don't see why it would matter now. Perhaps it you peeled back a few layers you might even come to the conclusion that she was young and idealistic at the time. That perhaps now that she is older she may actually regret what she did and thus said sorry?


Besides, sheesh, the war has been over for how many years now? Don't you think it's time to move on and let it go?

As to Eutrusca, you posted some time back that you became disabled in a jump well after the Vietnam war. Yet (perhaps it's just my impression) but you try some times to make it look like you were wounded in battle. Which by your own words you were not. Get over it man! No, it's not your fault that the government lied to the people and got involved in a civil war in Vietnam under some misguided thought process that they were fighting the commies. You were just following orders. I have nothing but respect for the military. However, please, Vietnam was the wrong war in the wrong place and every one knew it. May I remind you of the "Pentagon Papers"?

What more do you want from her?


I want her to accept the spit from all Vietnam Vets that care to waste spit on her. thats all. Then go peddle her crap in Vietnam, the land that she loves.

I want her to accept the spit from all Vietnam Vets that care to waste spit on her. thats all. Then go peddle her crap in Vietnam, the land that she loves.

How very mature of you ... :rolleyes:

Besides, sheesh, the war has been over for how many years now? Don't you think it's time to move on and let it go?

As to Eutrusca, you posted some time back that you became disabled in a jump well after the Vietnam war. Yet (perhaps it's just my impression) but you try some times to make it look like you were wounded in battle. Which by your own words you were not. Get over it man! No, it's not your fault that the government lied to the people and got involved in a civil war in Vietnam under some misguided thought process that they were fighting the commies. You were just following orders. I have nothing but respect for the military. However, please, Vietnam was the wrong war in the wrong place and every one knew it. May I remind you of the "Pentagon Papers"?


You have the supreme ignorance and gaul to tell a veteran to "let it go" and get over it? Its Veteran's that allow you to be such a disgusting appologist, NOT JANE FONDA. She didnt help end the war, she helped strengthen the enemy and increase the abuse of POWS-while testifying that they were being well treated. She is a liar. She is scum. Stop arguing her side of the story-her motives are full of holes.

Give Sean Penn some time.

Sean doesn't belong in the traitor category. He didn’t aid an enemy we were at war with. He just spent his own money to go chat with Saddam. This places him squarely in the stupid category along with the rest of the high school educated celebrities. I really love it when these morons claim to speak for me and most Americans. It’s right up there with Europeans telling me how I should vote.

Are you a mind reader? No? Me either. We don't know why she said sorry and what you say is pure speculation. All we do know is she did say sorry. What her motives were no one knows but her. She has sold many books over the years and made a ton of money from books & movies and never said sorry. So, I don't see why it would matter now. Perhaps it you peeled back a few layers you might even come to the conclusion that she was young and idealistic at the time. That perhaps now that she is older she may actually regret what she did and thus said sorry?


According to NPR, she said sorry for the first time at the opening of the book tour. Make of that what you will.

The people at NPR seemed surprised.

You have the supreme ignorance and gaul to tell a veteran to "let it go" and get over it? She is a liar. She is scum. Stop arguing her side of the story-her motives are full of holes.

Look up the "Pentagon Papers" that's all I have to say. She was right! As was every person who objected to the war in Vietnam. Perhaps it was before your time and you're too young to recall the whole war was a farce and political. Just look up the Pentagon Papers.

How very mature of you ... :rolleyes:


I'm not here to impress you and I couldnt care less what your opinion is of me. Keep pretending you're better than that and you have all the facts-keep pretending you're an intellectual and this is beneath you. Strong American men were captured and tortured till some lost their minds and many lost their lives-with her voice being broadcast that they were war criminals and baby killers.
And when combat there involving the US stopped, so did her love and support of the Vietnamese people. She moved on to the next "stylish" thing.
I am mature-and I have no use for people who seek to stay in style.

She moved on to the next "stylish" thing.
I am mature-and I have no use for people who seek to stay in style.

She was right. Maybe going over there was wrong, but every person who objected to the war was right. It all came out if you recall. Just look up what I've asked you to and you will see. It's not a theory or a conspiracy. It was proven.

I don't think the way the troops were treated was right. But the people who objected to the war were right! More right in fact than they had any idea until the Pentagon Papers came out.

Look up the "Pentagon Papers" that's all I have to say. She was right! As was every person who objected to the war in Vietnam. Perhaps it was before your time and you're too young to recall the whole war was a farce and political. Just look up the Pentagon Papers.


She didnt protest, dolt. She went to the enemy in person, toured their apparatus-SHE MADE FREAKING BROADCASTS ON THEIR BEHALF AGAINST AMERICAN TROOPS.
I'm not too young-I'm likely older than you.

I dont need to tell you what to do with your Pentagon Papers. They have nothing at all to do with what this douche bag did. I never said I loved war or The Vietnam War or the atrocities that may have been committed. Wether the war was wrong or right doesnt much matter to the poor bastard thats stuck naked in a cage for YEARS being tortured and humiliated as sport.
If Jane Fonda was appealing to our elected officials to bring these Americans home my opinion of her would be different. All of her efforts were to hurt the individual soldier as much as she was capable of . If you're against a war, you make yourself heard to the men in charge-The White House, Congress, etc... There were plenty of protests her and she had the resources to get her message out. Instead, she got in bed with the enemy and broadcasted to the grunts-in an effort to demoralize.
Screw her. She is trash.

She was right. Maybe going over there was wrong, but every person who objected to the war was right. It all came out if you recall. Just look up what I've asked you to and you will see. It's not a theory or a conspiracy. It was proven.

I don't think the way the troops were treated was right. But the people who objected to the war were right! More right in fact than they had any idea until the Pentagon Papers came out.

It's not as simple as saying that just because someone opposed the war meant that they were "right". It's not like they were given some prescient power to magically know what was going on.

It was wrong but I understand.
I know several vets and they are still screwed psychologically. And then after been taken prisoner some celebrity woman, from your own country, said "you are all bad men, and I spit on you" ignoring the fact many were conscripted and did not want to be there.
I also remember seeing several articles about the VC taking her to see POW's and her treating them like "crepe". For example a group of soldiers wrote down messages for their family and asked her to give the messages to them. She gave them to the guards, thus getting the soldiers beaten and abused.
Although this is a personal account of another person i do not know, it would justify such actions if true.

She was right. Maybe going over there was wrong, but every person who objected to the war was right. It all came out if you recall. Just look up what I've asked you to and you will see. It's not a theory or a conspiracy. It was proven.

I don't think the way the troops were treated was right. But the people who objected to the war were right! More right in fact than they had any idea until the Pentagon Papers came out.


Of course going over there was wrong-thats the whole subject. Maybe you missed it, or missed my point. No one in here has said that Vietnam was good. With the gift of hindsight, many agree it was bad. I dont need you to try to prove that point to me. its not relevant to the actual subject.
The subject is what Jane Fonda did. it all came out, as you know. Its not a theory or a conspriracy.

I will actually be at the Vietnam War Memorial as well as The Iwo Jima memorial in Washington DC tommorrow. I'll pay my respects to those men who died, to the ones that made it home and to the ones we still dont know what happened to.

I will actually be at the Vietnam War Memorial as well as The Iwo Jima memorial in Washington DC tommorrow. I'll pay my respects to those men who died, to the ones that made it home and to the ones we still dont know what happened to.

You do that. Because those poor men died for a lie!

The Pentagon Papers! (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)

You do that. Because those poor men died for a lie!

The Pentagon Papers! (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)


Still not the subject. Still not a dispute. Are you really so dense?

You admire the action of spitting someone else in the face?

I wish I could say I was surprised.

When someone deserves it as much as Jane Fonda does... it is fitting.

Still not the subject. Still not a dispute. Are you really so dense?

If all you wish to do is flame me (twice now) I will leave you to debate with yourself. Or to pat on the back people who only agree with you. Or perhaps flame some one else who will report you to the mods. Don't worry, I won't, It's not my style.

Have a nice day!

If all you wish to do is flame me (twice now) I will leave you to debate with yourself. Or to pat on the back people who only agree with you. Or perhaps flame some one else who will report you to the mods. Don't worry, I won't, It's not my style.

Have a nice day!

Wishing you the same.

I'm just curious, how would Eutrusca and those who agree with the man's actions feel if instead of merely spitting on her, he'd killed her? Still think it's payback, and something to be adored?

Or does actual violent crime still bother anyone?

I will actually be at the Vietnam War Memorial as well as The Iwo Jima memorial in Washington DC tommorrow. I'll pay my respects to those men who died, to the ones that made it home and to the ones we still dont know what happened to.
Thank you. Say hello to my best friend from college, Peter Borsay. He was killed in action in Vietnam while I was still in-country. Panel 23W Line 025. I know you will like him.

I'm just curious, how would Eutrusca and those who agree with the man's actions feel if instead of merely spitting on her, he'd killed her? Still think it's payback, and something to be adored?

Or does actual violent crime still bother anyone?
Look ... I didn't say I approved of killing anyone. I've never spit on anyone, nor would I. I was simply indicating that Hanoi Jane was finally getting a bit of payback for being a traitor.

Look ... I didn't say I approved of killing anyone. I've never spit on anyone, nor would I. I was simply indicating that Hanoi Jane was finally getting a bit of payback for being a traitor.

I know... and in that case ... logically whats payback for treason? Execution. So it seems if you really think she's a traitor then you'd agree that this wasn't even close to payback, that the only real payback would have been her death, yes?

You do that. Because those poor men died for a lie!

The Pentagon Papers! (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)
If you look at it one way, all who die for a "cause" die for a lie. Please don't dishonor the Vietnam veteran war dead by indicating that they threw their lives away. They, by and large, were there because they believed they were doing the right thing. Try and respect them for that, rather than saying they were dupes and idiots. :(

I know... and in that case ... logically whats payback for treason? Execution. So it seems if you really think she's a traitor then you'd agree that this wasn't even close to payback, that the only real payback would have been her death, yes?
It's been many, many years since anyone was executed in this Country for treason. I think the last ones were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Personally, I would love to see all of her assets confiscated and her incacerated for the remainder of her life, but that's just my personal preference.

It was wrong but I understand.
I know several vets and they are still screwed psychologically. And then after been taken prisoner some celebrity woman, from your own country, said "you are all bad men, and I spit on you" ignoring the fact many were conscripted and did not want to be there.
I also remember seeing several articles about the VC taking her to see POW's and her treating them like "crepe". For example a group of soldiers wrote down messages for their family and asked her to give the messages to them. She gave them to the guards, thus getting the soldiers beaten and abused.
Although this is a personal account of another person i do not know, it would justify such actions if true.
The incident with the messages supposedly passed to Hanoi Jane was shown to have been incorrect.

If you look at it one way, all who die for a "cause" die for a lie. Please don't dishonor the Vietnam veteran war dead by indicating that they threw their lives away. They, by and large, were there because they believed they were doing the right thing. Try and respect them for that, rather than saying they were dupes and idiots. :(

Saying the one does not imply the other. Personally, I respect them for having died for what they believed in, and thinking they were doing their duty for their country, while at the same time I do believe the authorities of the time threw away their lives for absolutely nothing. The fact that they were manipulated into dying for no reason doesn't make them any less worthy of respect. To me, at least.

You were a solider, she was born into money and earned a lot of her own money and married a guy who was rich, just like she was rich. Just because you have not in your life had the ability or whatever to make the money as Jane Fonda doesn't make it unfair. You chose the path in life you wanted to take, she chose hers'. Don't get all up in arms because some one you "hate" has more money than you. You knew what you were getting yourself into and from all the posts I have ever seen you post you sound proud of it. So quit yer bitching that you have no money and she's rich. She would of been rich either way.
You have taken that post out of the conext of the discussion. I have no desire to be rich. If I did, I'm sure I could have figured out some way to become so, since I achieved every goal I ever set for myself. It's just not my thing. I'm not "up in arms" because she's wealthy, I was simply pointing out the disparity of treatment between those who lay their lives on the line for their Country, and those who used fame and fortune to defame them.

Saying the one does not imply the other. Personally, I respect them for having died for what they believed in, and thinking they were doing their duty for their country, while at the same time I do believe the authorities of the time threw away their lives for absolutely nothing. The fact that they were manipulated into dying for no reason doesn't make them any less worthy of respect. To me, at least.
Good.

The mindset in the fifties was "Country, right or wrong." There were many veterans with serious doubts about the war who still served with distinction.

Kyle: Stan, I thought those Afghan kids got you to hate America.
Stan: No, I Iearned something today, and it's that America is our home team, and if you don't want to root for the home team then get the hell out of the stadium.

Thank you. Say hello to my best friend from college, Peter Borsay. He was killed in action in Vietnam while I was still in-country. Panel 23W Line 025. I know you will like him.


I'll look him up.

Did she fight against Americans? If you consider speaking out against an unjust war, or posing for photos to be 'fighting against', you have a strange view on it. Damaged the morale of American soldiers? Do you really think they majority of them would have been thinking, "oh man, maybe we're wrong about this if even Jane Fonda wants to be photographed with the enemy..."? Most likely they were cursing her, putting pictures of her up for target practice, and generally getting all agitated about it. Aided and abetted the enemy? Please. If an American celebrity went to Iraq and posed with insurgents, I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .

Jane Fonda maliciously and intentionally endangered the lives of POWs. On a visit to Vietnam, she was "introduced" to a line of POWs, each of whom handed her slips of paper with their name, number, etc. on it, in hopes that she would take them back with her and give them to the US authorities. Instead, she handed them to the leader at the POW camp. What do you think happened to those guys?

The fact that she wasn't tried for treason is truly outrageous and, while I agree that this man had no protected "right" to do what he did, I fully support him in it.

I take with more than a grain of salt the "treason" and "aid and abet" the enemy charges from those who have said anyone that protests a war after it starts is guilty of those things. Regardless, Ms. Fonda was not guilty of treason. That is simply ridiculous.

So maliciously and willfully getting three American POWs killed is not treason? What the hell is the term for, then?

Well, America shouldn't have been interfering in Vietnam in the first place. Vietnam was a nation undergoing a natural political process - revolution - and I for one find the continuous rference to the 'Vietnam War' offensive.

The supposed divisions between North and South Vietnam were arbitrary and imposed upon it from without. Vietnam is and was one country, one nation - albeit one that chose to pursue a form of government different from that of the United States of America.

If you feel a sense of betrayal, perhaps you should address the betrayal of your government - placing you and your countrymen in harm's way in aid of - what? Propping up a regime whose time had come and gone? Hoping to prevent natural political evolution? Interfering in internal Vietnamese affairs?

Jane Fonda was perfectly within her rights to do what she did. America was not perfectly within it's rights to do what it did in Vietnam. Don't like it? Well, tough. No amount of tobacco juice or simmering rage will make things right.

This is old, really old. Thirty+ years old, get OVER it, Eutrusca...

Jane Fonda maliciously and intentionally endangered the lives of POWs. On a visit to Vietnam, she was "introduced" to a line of POWs, each of whom handed her slips of paper with their name, number, etc. on it, in hopes that she would take them back with her and give them to the US authorities. Instead, she handed them to the leader at the POW camp. What do you think happened to those guys?

The fact that she wasn't tried for treason is truly outrageous and, while I agree that this man had no protected "right" to do what he did, I fully support him in it.

The slips of paper myth is just that. She did pose for pictures and do propagandaish radio speeches. She also lied and said POW's were well-treated and that she was witness to that. She called POWs that claimed they were tortured "liars" who were furthering their own agendas. Tokyo Rose was sent to prison for less. Jane Fonda did not promote peace. She promoted war and she sided with the VC. People who claim she was a peace activist are ignoring the facts. She called the VC noble people and encouraged them to go out keeping on fighting. Jane Fonda is a horrible person but it's important to get the facts straight.

Jane Fonda maliciously and intentionally endangered the lives of POWs. On a visit to Vietnam, she was "introduced" to a line of POWs, each of whom handed her slips of paper with their name, number, etc. on it, in hopes that she would take them back with her and give them to the US authorities. Instead, she handed them to the leader at the POW camp. What do you think happened to those guys?

The fact that she wasn't tried for treason is truly outrageous and, while I agree that this man had no protected "right" to do what he did, I fully support him in it.

Yeah, I've heard this one before...got anything to substantiate this claim? Other than links to rabidly uber-conservative blogs, that is?

Jane Fonda was perfectly within her rights to do what she did. America was not perfectly within it's rights to do what it did in Vietnam. Don't like it? Well, tough. No amount of tobacco juice or simmering rage will make things right.

Wow, I want to have a way to get three men killed as a direct result of my actions and somehow be well within my rights.

Well, America shouldn't have been interfering in Vietnam in the first place. Vietnam was a nation undergoing a natural political process - revolution - and I for one find the continuous rference to the 'Vietnam War' offensive.

The supposed divisions between North and South Vietnam were arbitrary and imposed upon it from without. Vietnam is and was one country, one nation - albeit one that chose to pursue a form of government different from that of the United States of America.

If you feel a sense of betrayal, perhaps you should address the betrayal of your government - placing you and your countrymen in harm's way in aid of - what? Propping up a regime whose time had come and gone? Hoping to prevent natural political evolution? Interfering in internal Vietnamese affairs?

Jane Fonda was perfectly within her rights to do what she did. America was not perfectly within it's rights to do what it did in Vietnam. Don't like it? Well, tough. No amount of tobacco juice or simmering rage will make things right.

This is old, really old. Thirty+ years old, get OVER it, Eutrusca...

Providing comfort or aid to the enemy is illegal. Tokyo Rose was tried and convicted for it. Thinking Viet Nam was wrong does not excuse the actions of all the people who agree with you. If you committed a crime in "protest" then you deserve to be punished. This is the law and it should be enforced. Seperate from that, slander does not fall under freedom of speech. It is a well-known fact that she knowingly lied about the treatment of POWs. Slander. Get your facts straight or close your mouth.

Wow, I want to have a way to get three men killed as a direct result of my actions and somehow be well within my rights.

This is also untrue or at least unverifiable.

This is old, really old. Thirty+ years old, get OVER it, Eutrusca...
I wish I could. I wish all of us could. You didn't live through it. You have no idea the depth of hurt and anger many of us feel.

I think that the Vietnam war was bad, but actually going to Hanoi and endorsing the North Vietnamese was also wrong. Don't forget, the communists also committed genocide.

Whereas, of course, the Native Americans tripped and hurt themselves?

Wow, I want to have a way to get three men killed as a direct result of my actions and somehow be well within my rights.

Prove your claim or shut up.

Prove your claim or shut up.

Prove yours. Show that everything Hanoi Jane did was "within her rights". What rights did she express when she was lying about POWs and giving propaganda speechs on Vietnamese radio? Take your time on your post. I'll give you a hint - it's not freedom of speech.

I wish I could. I wish all of us could. You didn't live through it. You have no idea the depth of hurt and anger many of us feel.


You should know that holding onto anger and hurt is detrimental to your health. Forgiveness is the only way to rid yourself of this, and noone can forgive her and all those other protesters for you. You must do it for yourself.

You should know that holding onto anger and hurt is detrimental to your health. Forgiveness is the only way to rid yourself of this, and noone can forgive her and all those other protesters for you. You must do it for yourself.
I well know this. It's only at certain times, like when articles like this bring it to the forefront, that I even remember all of that unpleasantness. I'm not consciously holding on to anger or resentment, as a matter of fact I was in favor of the general amnesty for draft-dodgers granted by President Carter.

I wish I could. I wish all of us could. You didn't live through it. You have no idea the depth of hurt and anger many of us feel.

And just how are you so certain I didn't live through it, Eutrusca?

I do have an extremely clear idea as to the depth of hurt and anger that many of you felt - I just wish you could move on and not let that negative experience define you to as great an extent as you've allowed it to.

Yes, bad things happened. To a lot of people. I've had bad things happen in my life, too. But what purpose is served in re-hashing old pain? How is it at all helpful or useful to refuse to let go of your hurt?

We have a remarkable resource where memory is concerned - and not the least remarkable aspect of our memory is our ability to filter out the unnecessary. This is why over a period of years, I am blessed to recall in greater detail memories of the pleasant, of the positive, than the unpleasant or negative. The old hurts, pains, and anguishes are of no particular use - and they are sooner to fade than the good things.

It was a long time ago, Eutrusca. Spitting tobacco juice doesn't win arguments anywhere, at any time. It's time to let go of your anger.

Prove yours. Show that everything Hanoi Jane did was "within her rights". What rights did she express when she was lying about POWs and giving propaganda speechs on Vietnamese radio? Take your time on your post. I'll give you a hint - it's not freedom of speech.

Jocabia - butt out. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing dempublicents.

Jane Fonda maliciously and intentionally endangered the lives of POWs. On a visit to Vietnam, she was "introduced" to a line of POWs, each of whom handed her slips of paper with their name, number, etc. on it, in hopes that she would take them back with her and give them to the US authorities. Instead, she handed them to the leader at the POW camp. What do you think happened to those guys?


I asked dempublicents to substantiate this claim of his. I didn't ask you to get involved. Unless you'd care to substantiate dempublicent's claim yourself, I have no reason to continue this exchange. I do so now only out of a sense of civility, to acknowledge I've read your post.

Thank you, drive through.

It was a long time ago, Eutrusca. Spitting tobacco juice doesn't win arguments anywhere, at any time. It's time to let go of your anger.

I didn't live through it (I was in the military in the 80s and early 90s).

But we heard endless tales of the abuse heaped on men who came back from the war.

So, whenever we ran into anti-military protesters, we administered some payback where legal.

Step within the "exclusion zone" of a nuclear weapon that's being transported, and at least two soldiers would beat you within an inch of your life - all perfectly legal.

I'm not that angry anymore - I got it out of my system. And you're right, hanging on to it doesn't do any good - you have to do something to get it out though. Better out than in.

I lost my father to that war. He served two tours, and was decorated with the Silver Star for bravery in combat. (He held his position knowing he would be overrun so he could call in an air strike that ultimately saved an entire platoon.) For her to imply that he or any other soldier that served were "baby killers" is an extreme insult. Rot in hell, Hanoi Jane.

Yeah, I've heard this one before...got anything to substantiate this claim? Other than links to rabidly uber-conservative blogs, that is?

I stay away from conservative blogs - unless it is to get a good laugh.

As for links, no - it's a story I have heard from many a serviceman, nor is it inconceivable and that is enough for me. You may choose to disbelive it much as you may choose to disbelive that OJ Simpson is a murderer - but at least he had to stand trial.

I lost my father to that war. He served two tours, and was decorated with the Silver Star for bravery in combat. (He held his position knowing he would be overrun so he could call in an air strike that ultimately saved an entire platoon.) For her to imply that he or any other soldier that served were "baby killers" is an extreme insult. Rot in hell, Hanoi Jane.

Sorrows for your loss, but that doesn't forgive you for wishing Hell upon anybody. An eternity of torment is nothing to trifle with. And strong political opinions are not cause for damnation in any event.

-snip- I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .

DUH! lol Bush says so so it must be true! coz he can't be wrong he just can't
*breaks down into tears*

And just how are you so certain I didn't live through it, Eutrusca?

I do have an extremely clear idea as to the depth of hurt and anger that many of you felt - I just wish you could move on and not let that negative experience define you to as great an extent as you've allowed it to.

Yes, bad things happened. To a lot of people. I've had bad things happen in my life, too. But what purpose is served in re-hashing old pain? How is it at all helpful or useful to refuse to let go of your hurt?

We have a remarkable resource where memory is concerned - and not the least remarkable aspect of our memory is our ability to filter out the unnecessary. This is why over a period of years, I am blessed to recall in greater detail memories of the pleasant, of the positive, than the unpleasant or negative. The old hurts, pains, and anguishes are of no particular use - and they are sooner to fade than the good things.

It was a long time ago, Eutrusca. Spitting tobacco juice doesn't win arguments anywhere, at any time. It's time to let go of your anger.

I've been through bad things. I was molested as a child. Fortunately for me, when it happened I didn't have someone on television telling me it was my fault or that it really didn't happen the way I said. Even worse would be if that person was still on television today, even on occasion to honored as one of the most important people of the century, and they were still well-remembered for having made the false statements about me and my molestation. I've dealt with being molested but I think it would have been much more difficult and perhaps even impossible if the above were true.

I think Etrusca is making the point that it's hard to let it go when you regularly hear people still acting like what she did was honorable and justified, still defending her atrocious actions. I think his point is very valid and the only help I can offer to him is that there will always be people like me who were very proud to follow in his footsteps and do their duty to their country, that there will always be people like me who recognize the debt that we owe to him and his friends, that there will always be people like me who tear up when they look at size of that wall and the size of the sacrifice that was made by his generation, and that those same people are also sorry that so much was wrong about how they were treated and what they were sent to do and amazed that these men and women went to help and defend their brethren anyway.

Etrusca, I used to tell people when I was in the military that complained that our leadership wasn't worthy of our respect or our salutes that we weren't saluting them or respecting them, but that were showing respect and saluting people like you, my grandfather (WWII), all the people on the Viet Nam memorial, and so on. I hope you recognize that for every person who feels like your efforts were a waste there are a hundred more who are overwhelmed by the sacrifice you made. When I went I didn't go because I felt like all of our actions defend our country or because I feel like the US government is always right. I went for two reasons - because I believe the US government is the best game in town and because if my buddy is going to be getting shot at I want to be there to have his back or the back of someone like him.

I lost my father to that war. He served two tours, and was decorated with the Silver Star for bravery in combat. (He held his position knowing he would be overrun so he could call in an air strike that ultimately saved an entire platoon.) For her to imply that he or any other soldier that served were "baby killers" is an extreme insult. Rot in hell, Hanoi Jane.


And while your father was serving, she was personally in the company of the enemy putting together broadcasts with her friends,specifically designed to demoralize him and all the other that served-calling them war criminals and baby killers. She wasnt home, appealing to congress that the war was wrong, bring our men home- she was pointedly striking at the heart of the individual soldier, causing almost literally the same damage as firing guns at them.
This is aiding the enemy, this is cheerleading and giving the enemy the will to fight. She showed her contempt for the individuall soldier when she knowingly LIED and said POWS were being well cared for. Was that war protest? Was that and effort to stop fighting? If you say yes, you are the lowest form of contemptable scum-like Jane.
She is teacherous, treasonous filth.

As for links, no - it's a story I have heard from many a serviceman, nor is it inconceivable and that is enough for me. You may choose to disbelive it much as you may choose to disbelive that OJ Simpson is a murderer - but at least he had to stand trial.

It's not enough for me, no. Sorry. It is not inconceivable that we're all the descendants of space-faring monkeys, either...but a story, however conceivable it may be, is just that - a story - unless you can substantiate it.

I'm not going anywhere near OJ Simpson. Let's deal with one pile of bullshit at a time. Don't make assumptions, btw.

Sorrows for your loss, but that doesn't forgive you for wishing Hell upon anybody. An eternity of torment is nothing to trifle with. And strong political opinions are not cause for damnation in any event.

She didn't just have opinions, she took action. Visiting the enemy is one thing, but scolding a line of POWs that were forced to fight in a war and calling them baby killers is WAY out of line. Especially from someone from Hollyweird that was born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

Sorrows for your loss, but that doesn't forgive you for wishing Hell upon anybody. An eternity of torment is nothing to trifle with. And strong political opinions are not cause for damnation in any event.

Indeed... and for those who believe that damnation is a rel thing... you would have thought that the attorney of such decisions should be the omnipotent power himself, no?

Sorrows for your loss, but that doesn't forgive you for wishing Hell upon anybody. An eternity of torment is nothing to trifle with. And strong political opinions are not cause for damnation in any event.

Here's the material from snopes.com - this isn't a right-wing blog - it's the place that debunks urban myths. You'll note that some stories are true and some are false.

The right to freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. It is also a double-edged sword: the same right that allows us to criticize our government's policies without fear of reprisal also protects those who endorse and promote racism, anti-semitism, ethnic hatred and other socially divisive positions.

Rarely is this dichotomy so evident as when a democratic nation engages in war, and the protection of civil liberties clashes head-on with the exigencies of a war effort. Protesting a government's involvement in a war without also interfering in the prosecution of that war is a difficult (if not impossible) feat, a situation that has sometimes led the government to curtail the freedom of speech, such as when the U.S. Sedition Act (passed during World War I) made criminals of those who would "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States." Under this law, peacefully urging citizens to resist the draft or simply drawing an editorial cartoon critical of the government became illegal. (The Sedition Act was later overturned.)

The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWS who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war, or any war at all, before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above — that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result — are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda."

The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him.

The story about a POW forced to kneel on rocky ground while holding a piece of steel rebar in his outstretched arms is true, though. That account comes from Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. His original statement, titled "Shame on Jane," was published in April by the Advocacy and Intelligence Network for POWs and MIAs.

The unknown author of the "Hanoi Jane" e-mail appears to have picked up Benge's story online and combined it with fabricated tales to create the forwarded text. Some versions now circulate with Benge's name listed; others quote his statement anonymously.

In fact, Fonda carried home letters from many American POWs to their families upon her return from North Vietnam, and rumors that a POW was beaten to death when he refused to meet with her were nothing more than rumors. Still, legally treasonous or not, Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions.

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

Whether the war was right or wrong, those who risked (and gave) their lives fighting it deserve respect, and for Fonda to brand men who were held captive and tortured as "liars" and "hypocrites" (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) in order to defend her political views was and is unpardonable.

Etrusca, I used to tell people when I was in the military that complained that our leadership wasn't worthy of our respect or our salutes that we weren't saluting them or respecting them, but that were showing respect and saluting people like you, my grandfather (WWII), all the people on the Viet Nam memorial, and so on. I hope you recognize that for every person who feels like your efforts were a waste there are a hundred more who are overwhelmed by the sacrifice you made. When I went I didn't go because I felt like all of our actions defend our country or because I feel like the US government is always right. I went for two reasons - because I believe the US government is the best game in town and because if my buddy is going to be getting shot at I want to be there to have his back or the back of someone like him.

man-that was heart-felt and well said. And sums up what many of us believe in.

By withdrawing from Vietnam, communist movements in Laos and Cambodia became stronger...even letting the Khmer Rouge take control of Camboida and kill vast portions of the population.
Losing Vietnam set the US back on the war against communism.
That, and the fact that Jane was in league with folks content to sit and smoke pot, leads me to regard her as a moral traitor. She was within her rights, but the action was clearly anti-American.

Jocabia - butt out. I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing dempublicents.

It's a forum. You're welcome to telegram here with your ignorant statements if you don't wish to be called on them.

I asked dempublicents to substantiate this claim of his. I didn't ask you to get involved. Unless you'd care to substantiate dempublicent's claim yourself, I have no reason to continue this exchange. I do so now only out of a sense of civility, to acknowledge I've read your post.

Thank you, drive through.

Her claim, first of all. What was it you said? Oh, yes, "don't make assumptions".

I still implore to substantiate your claim that Hanoi Jane was within her rights. You did make that claim, didn't you? Am I not allowed to ask or are you not capable of doing it? I help you out, there is no right that allows to lie about individuals. Also, there is specifically a law that makes it illegal to give aid to the enemy and, no, it does not require that it be a declared war.

I'll help you out here. If you wish for no one to call you on this crap, then get your facts straight before you post. Otherwise, you're going to be very upset very often with other posters. You're welcome.

Make sure you read this Dobbs...

Here's the material from snopes.com - this isn't a right-wing blog - it's the place that debunks urban myths. You'll note that some stories are true and some are false.

The right to freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. It is also a double-edged sword: the same right that allows us to criticize our government's policies without fear of reprisal also protects those who endorse and promote racism, anti-semitism, ethnic hatred and other socially divisive positions.

Rarely is this dichotomy so evident as when a democratic nation engages in war, and the protection of civil liberties clashes head-on with the exigencies of a war effort. Protesting a government's involvement in a war without also interfering in the prosecution of that war is a difficult (if not impossible) feat, a situation that has sometimes led the government to curtail the freedom of speech, such as when the U.S. Sedition Act (passed during World War I) made criminals of those who would "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States." Under this law, peacefully urging citizens to resist the draft or simply drawing an editorial cartoon critical of the government became illegal. (The Sedition Act was later overturned.)

The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWS who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war, or any war at all, before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above — that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result — are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him, saying, "I never met Jane Fonda."

The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him.

The story about a POW forced to kneel on rocky ground while holding a piece of steel rebar in his outstretched arms is true, though. That account comes from Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. His original statement, titled "Shame on Jane," was published in April by the Advocacy and Intelligence Network for POWs and MIAs.

The unknown author of the "Hanoi Jane" e-mail appears to have picked up Benge's story online and combined it with fabricated tales to create the forwarded text. Some versions now circulate with Benge's name listed; others quote his statement anonymously.

In fact, Fonda carried home letters from many American POWs to their families upon her return from North Vietnam, and rumors that a POW was beaten to death when he refused to meet with her were nothing more than rumors. Still, legally treasonous or not, Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions.

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

Whether the war was right or wrong, those who risked (and gave) their lives fighting it deserve respect, and for Fonda to brand men who were held captive and tortured as "liars" and "hypocrites" (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) in order to defend her political views was and is unpardonable.

By withdrawing from Vietnam, communist movements in Laos and Cambodia became stronger...even letting the Khmer Rouge take control of Camboida and kill vast portions of the population.
Losing Vietnam set the US back on the war against communism.
That, and the fact that Jane was in league with folks content to sit and smoke pot, leads me to regard her as a moral traitor. She was within her rights, but the action was clearly anti-American.


Another good point-what happened to jane when things got ugly in cambodia? She wasnt so interested anymore? She wasnt for these people-she was against the US.

Make sure you read this Dobbs...

Read it the first time, Legs. There's nothing new here, other than the fact that she did eventually apologize publicly for her actions. I didn't know that.

So, what now- is she expected to apologize periodically? In perpetuity?

Honestly. Move on, people.

Oh and Jocabia, I did respond at length to one of your posts, but Jolt managed to send it into the ether. I don't much feel like re-creating that response at the moment - and gee, guess you're right, I goofed on dempublicent's gender. Do you feel an inflated sense of ego gratification for my erroneous use of the male personal pronoun? Why? I'm more than willing to make amends for it.

Don't think for a minute that you've put the wind up my skirts.

Read it the first time, Legs. There's nothing new here, other than the fact that she did eventually apologize publicly for her actions. I didn't know that.

What's new in the article is that it is explained that what she was doing was not protest - unlike those who protested the war, she continued to support the VC cause long after we left the country - she wanted them to win, and was willing to lie to do so - to say that our POWs were lying about the torture.

It probably would have been better to have charged her with giving aid and comfort to the enemy - then all this would have been behind us.

oh and Jocabia, I did respond at length to one of your posts, but Jolt managed to send it into the ether. I don't much feel like re-creating that response at the moment - and gee, guess you're right, I goofed on dempublicent's gender. Do you feel an inflated sense of ego gratification for my erroneous use of the male personal pronoun? Why? I'm more than willing to make amends for it.

You chastised someone for making assumptions I reflected that chastisement (I think I made that word up) back at you. Ask her, I thought she was a he at first too. In my defense, at the time, she was defending the rights of men in a way I FELT was unsympathetic to women. Mostly, in my reply to you, I was just trying to be amusing and at the same time help you realize that you referred to her with the wrong pronoun.

I was also reflecting your request for proof back at you. She made what I feel was erroneous statement and you requested proof. You made what I feel was an erroneous statemnet. I was saying that if she needs to back up her claims so do you. I like reflecting people's requests back at them. You'll find I do it often.

You chastised someone for making assumptions

No, I chastised someone (dempublicents) for continuing to perpetuate an urban legend that is without basis in reality. That has nothing to do with you. Why are you persisting?

I reflected that chastisement (I think I made that word up)

No. You didn't make that word up. You are using it poorly, however.

back at you.

Well, I'm not the one senselessly repeating bullshit, am I? It was bullshit - I called HER on it, she wouldn't play, Legs did instead, again this has nothing to do with you. Do you understand that?

Ask her, I thought she was a he at first too. In my defense, at the time, she was defending the rights of men in a way I FELT was unsympathetic to women. Mostly, in my reply to you, I was just trying to be amusing and at the same time help you realize that you referred to her with the wrong pronoun.

I'd be willing to dispute your position, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the matter-at-hand (and I'm wishing Jolt hadn't lost that other post, because I went on at length about sticking to just that, the matter-at-hand). And anyway, the gender of the poster dempublicents has exceedingly little to do with this thread - and this has absolutely nothing to do with YOU, other than the fact that you happened to read my posts. If bitching and back-biting is your idea of amusement or wit, I can only surmise yours is not a happy household. You have my sympathies.


I was also reflecting your request for proof back at you. She made what I feel was erroneous statement and you requested proof. You made what I feel was an erroneous statemnet. I was saying that if she needs to back up her claims so do you. I like reflecting people's requests back at them. You'll find I do it often.

You're right, she made an 'erroneous statement' by repeating an unsubstantiated urban myth. I indeed requested proof. And then you decided to insert yourself into the goings-on. I don't feel I made any erroneous statements, claims, or perpetuated any unsubstantiated urban myths - unless you feel that the individual's right to free speech constitutes such.

I take your last two statements to mean, ' I like insinuating myself into other people's conversations unbidden. You'll find I can't keep myself from doing so.' This is very instructional, Jocabia - I'll make a point of disregarding your superfluous input from here on in. And you'll find I'll do it consistently, too.

Sorry to hear you were molested, btw.

Well, I'm not the one senselessly repeating bullshit, am I? It was bullshit - I called HER on it, she wouldn't play, Legs did instead, again this has nothing to do with you. Do you understand that?

Yes, you are, the bullshit that she was within her rights. If other people have to substantiate and support their claims then you share the same burden. You have yet to do it. I suppose you won't play either, huh?

I'd be willing to dispute your position, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the matter-at-hand (and I'm wishing Jolt hadn't lost that other post, because I went on at length about sticking to just that, the matter-at-hand). And anyway, the gender of the poster dempublicents has exceedingly little to do with this thread - and this has absolutely nothing to do with YOU, other than the fact that you happened to read my posts. If bitching and back-biting is your idea of amusement or wit, I can only surmise yours is not a happy household. You have my sympathies.

I happened to be replying to the fact that you told another poster to "shut up" while saying things that are equally untrue and unsupported. In that same post I noticed you referred to her by the wrong gender and notified you. It was one line in a long post. If you can only concentrate on the fact that I let you know he's a she, then yours is likely not a happy household.

You're right, she made an 'erroneous statement' by repeating an unsubstantiated urban myth. I indeed requested proof. And then you decided to insert yourself into the goings-on. I don't feel I made any erroneous statements, claims, or perpetuated any unsubstantiated urban myths - unless you feel that the individual's right to free speech constitutes such.

You made a similar erroneous statement. The individual's right to free speech has little or nothing to do with what Jane Fonda did. If you believe it is, prove it. Show me where the right to free speech gives you the right to lie and to give aid to the enemy. If not that right, then show me what right does. Otherwise, her choosing "not to play" is just following your lead.

I take your last two statements to mean, ' I like insinuating myself into other people's conversations unbidden. You'll find I can't keep myself from doing so.' This is very instructional, Jocabia - I'll make a point of disregarding your superfluous input from here on in. And you'll find I'll do it consistently, too.

Sorry to hear you were molested, btw.

I didn't realize this was YOUR conversation. Thought it was a forum where we all share and reply to ideas. I guess I was wrong or, perhaps, you are. If you find it easier to go unchallenged because you can't support your theories, then it would be best to ignore my input. I hardly find asking you to follow your own request of supporting claims to be superfluous, but maybe that's because I'm not a hypocrite who tells people to "shut up" when they post unsupported statements just like the one just posted by said hypocrite.

Jocabia ...

Dobbs Town ...

.... take a deep breath, let it out, take another, then repeat to yourself, "Calm, calm, calm." :)

Someone just kill her so the vets can get over it.

It's not enough for me, no. Sorry. It is not inconceivable that we're all the descendants of space-faring monkeys, either...but a story, however conceivable it may be, is just that - a story - unless you can substantiate it.

I find it pretty difficult to imagine that we are all descendants of space-faring anything.

I'm not going anywhere near OJ Simpson. Let's deal with one pile of bullshit at a time. Don't make assumptions, btw.

What assumptions?

What assumptions?

Without going waaaaaaaaaaaaay back, I think it was an assumption as to whether or not I found OJ Simpson guilty or innocent on the basis of the determination of his criminal trial.

Anyway, I wanted to keep the discussion focused on the thread's specified topic, and not veer off in peculiar directions - but it's getting a little late in the day to keep this thing going, Jocabia's protestations aside.

Eutrusca, I just had an idea: if veterans REALLY dislike Ms. Fonda, perhaps the best way for you to get 'payback' is to very publicly FORGIVE her for her apparent trespasses. How you like THAT idea? You get to humiliate her AND indisputably hold the higher moral ground. It's just like having your cake and eating it too.

Except this fellow who spat tobacco juice on her has kinda monkey-wrenched that plan. The vets would have to apologize for that incident at the same time as forgiving her, and...

...oh it just gets too complicated. Why not just put it all to one side?

Without going waaaaaaaaaaaaay back, I think it was an assumption as to whether or not I found OJ Simpson guilty or innocent on the basis of the determination of his criminal trial.

I never made anny such assumption. I simply stated that you could, if you wanted, believe that OJ is innocent. I do not believe that. There was nothing implicit in my statement to suggest what you actually believe.

Someone just kill her so the vets can get over it.


There are far more people than just the Veterans that are sickened and disgusted by her actions.

Jocabia ...

Dobbs Town ...

.... take a deep breath, let it out, take another, then repeat to yourself, "Calm, calm, calm." :)

I don't like ignorance which is why I corrected both the mistaken myth and the claim that Jane Fonda was acting within her rights when she did what she did. I'm particularly annoyed by people who tell people they don't have the right to talk while spouting the aformentioned ignorance.

The slips of paper thing is a well-documented myth.

That Jane Fonda lied about the treatment of veterans and gave moral support and encouragement directly to the enemy while intentionally degrading and demoralizing American soldiers on Vietnamese radio is a well-documented fact. I have yet to see anyone show where her right to do this is protected.

Both of them said something that was untrue. You can't tell one person to support their statements or "shut up" without expecting to be asked to do so yourself. If he/she doesn't like that, then that's just tough. I'm perfectly calm and slightly amused by someone who is so obviously not being reasonable. He/she is welcome to give me a supported response any time they are ready.

Sorry for misspelling your name earlier, by the by.

Oh just drop it already, Jocabia. It's dull, and not getting sharper anytime soon. I'm not interested, and I'm pretty reasonably sure no-one else is, either...with one notable exception, of course...

*yawns*

Oh just drop it already, Jocabia. It's dull, and not getting sharper anytime soon. I'm not interested, and I'm pretty reasonably sure no-one else is, either...with one notable exception, of course...

*yawns*

*smiles* So you are unwilling to support your statements. Interesting. Why is that? It's completely on topic. We're talking about Jane Fonda and if she was acting within her rights or not, or did I miss it? Is there some specific reason you don't wish to address my statements or is it because my question don't exist as I am not ALLOWED to talk to you? Is it that you would prefer to attack people's mistakes rather than present a reasoned and full argument? Hmmm... I think we all know the answers.

Would anyone else care to explain how Hanoi Jane's actions were protected under US law? Would anyone care to defend Hanoi Jane's actions with any argument other than "The Viet Nam War was wrong so anyone who did ANYTHING to protest was completely justified"? Trust me, I like reasonable arguments, just not fallacious arguments that ignore laws and make up rights.

I never made anny such assumption. I simply stated that you could, if you wanted, believe that OJ is innocent. I do not believe that. There was nothing implicit in my statement to suggest what you actually believe.

Dem, just admit that you mistakingly believed the Jane Fonda slips of paper myth so we can move on. He/she's intentionally focusing in on your wording and misstating what you say or mean so he/she doesn't have to support what he/she claimed or address any real point, in fact. This way we can get back to the fact that spitting on someone is against the law and that Jane Fonda should be found guilty of the same crime as Tokyo Rose as her actions were more malicious.

Someone just kill her so the vets can get over it.

Someone just kill ME so Jocabia can get over it...

*smiles* So you are unwilling to support your statements. Interesting. Why is that? It's completely on topic. We're talking about Jane Fonda and if she was acting within her rights or not, or did I miss it? Is there some specific reason you don't wish to address my statements or is it because my question don't exist as I am not ALLOWED to talk to you? Is it that you would prefer to attack people's mistakes rather than present a reasoned and full argument? Hmmm... I think we all know the answers.

Would anyone else care to explain how Hanoi Jane's actions were protected under US law? Would anyone care to defend Hanoi Jane's actions with any argument other than "The Viet Nam War was wrong so anyone who did ANYTHING to protest was completely justified"? Trust me, I like reasonable arguments, just not fallacious arguments that ignore laws and make up rights.

Jocabia, people are more than willing to admit Ms. Fonda's actions were wrong. She herself has apologized for most of them.

But, if you insist on arguing this, please point out what law Ms. Fonda allegedly violated and by what specific actions. If you want to allege someone violated a law, be prepared to indicate how their specific actions satisfied all the elements of a crime.

Ms. Fonda's actions were protected by the First Amendment. If you really want to dig into the caselaw about what is and is not protected by the First Amendment, I will -- but lay out a bit more than vague assertions of illegality first.

There are far more people than just the Veterans that are sickened and disgusted by her actions.

And yet, millions upon millions of people go see her movies, buy her work-out video's, buy her books. She was even named one of the top 100 influential women in America. So, it's probably not as many people as you think.

Jocabia, people are more than willing to admit Ms. Fonda's actions were wrong. She herself has apologized for most of them.

But, if you insist on arguing this, please point out what law Ms. Fonda allegedly violated and by what specific actions. If you want to allege someone violated a law, be prepared to indicate how their specific actions satisfied all the elements of a crime.

Ms. Fonda's actions were protected by the First Amendment. If you really want to dig into the caselaw about what is and is not protected by the First Amendment, I will -- but lay out a bit more than vague assertions of illegality first.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The point here being aid and comfort. She gave radio addresses that encouraged the VC and called Americans babykillers. She toured with the VC military sitting in AA guns and pretending to shoot down American planes. She met with American POWs and when she did supported their captors and gave the POWs nothing but derision. Her meetings with these POWs was an act that directly resulting in their torture and it could be reasonably expected to do so. Certainly, if Haupt could be found guilty for aiding his son then she could have at least been tried.

As far as what she said being protected by the first amendment, I believe that calling someone a liar when you reasonably know them to be telling the truth is slander, i.e. not protected by the first amendment. I also believe call all american soldiers, and in some cases specific American soldiers, war criminals when they weren't is slanderous as well.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

If what she did was truely punishable by law then shouldnt she have served some sort of sentence for it?

...oh it just gets too complicated. Why not just put it all to one side?
I really wish I could. I've tried and tried, but much to my embarassment, I haven't been able to. There have been times when I went for years without thinking about it, but then something would bring her name to mind and I would realize that the anger hadn't gone away, just gone into hiding.

If what she did was truely punishable by law then shouldnt she have served some sort of sentence for it?

Murder is against the law. Does everyone who has murdered serve time? No. The justice system tries to punish the guilty but they have a job to protect the innocent that occasionally lets a guilty person go free. Also, as we all know, occasionally (yeah, right, only occasionally :rolleyes: ), justice takes a backseat to politics, which I believe is what happened here.

I really wish I could. I've tried and tried, but much to my embarassment, I haven't been able to. There have been times when I went for years without thinking about it, but then something would bring her name to mind and I would realize that the anger hadn't gone away, just gone into hiding.

Let me start with even if this sounds sarcastic, it really is not meant to be.

Wouldn't it be great if all it took to let something go was to just decide it's over and that you want to let it go? Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was all it took to let go of the anger and the hurt when someone wronged you? Clearly, not being angry and hurt offers a better life. I try, valiantly I think, to be as forgiving as I can for my own sake as much as for the sakes of other people, but in some cases people just cut us to quick and the scar never heals all the way. I don't think this is shameful in the least, though I would agree with other posters that say that you would benefit by putting it in the past. Peace.

Murder is against the law. Does everyone who has murdered serve time? No. The justice system tries to punish the guilty but they have a job to protect the innocent that occasionally lets a guilty person go free. Also, as we all know, occasionally (yeah, right, only occasionally :rolleyes: ), justice takes a backseat to politics, which I believe is what happened here.


no, not everyone that murders someone gets punished for it, but if we KNOW they did it then they do get punished.

If we know someone comited treason and have all teh facts I assume that person woudl get punished for it. What political motivation do you think would have kept that from happening?

Let me start with even if this sounds sarcastic, it really is not meant to be.

Wouldn't it be great if all it took to let something go was to just decide it's over and that you want to let it go? Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was all it took to let go of the anger and the hurt when someone wronged you? Clearly, not being angry and hurt offers a better life. I try, valiantly I think, to be as forgiving as I can for my own sake as much as for the sakes of other people, but in some cases people just cut us to quick and the scar never heals all the way. I don't think this is shameful in the least, though I would agree with other posters that say that you would benefit by putting it in the past. Peace.
That would be great. I'm honestly not one to give safe harbor to resentment. I have very little trouble forgiving almost anything. I just can't seem to do that with this. It's all tangled up inside with the intense sorrow I still feel for all those who didn't make it, with my pride at having done what I thought was my job, with the love I feel for my people and our home. It's a mess.

One thing sure ... at least I don't have as long to worry about it now as I have had.

no, not everyone that murders someone gets punished for it, but if we KNOW they did it then they do get punished.

If we know someone comited treason and have all teh facts I assume that person woudl get punished for it. What political motivation do you think would have kept that from happening?

Honestly, I wasn't alive when she did most of these acts and for the ones I was alive for I was very, very young. I could only guess what political motivations there were, but like many people who have responded to this post, lots of politicians believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. if she is speaking out about the current administration and I don't agree with them then regardless of what she did, I support it. A lot of people start with "US in Viet Nam" = wrong and use that to say that anyone who did anything against the US being in Viet Nam is automatically right.

Also, I think it's naive to believe that someone we know for sure committed a crime is always punished for that crime. For example, if I didn't mirandize a criminal and I'm the arresting officer a case could get thrown out despite a very comfortable knowledge of guilt. Illegal searches make evidence get thrown out even though the evidence still exists and shows guilt (I'm not complaining, just pointing that out). There are lots of ways we can KNOW someone is guilty and the court has to treat them as if they are innocent. In the case of treason you can confess to the crime but if two people did not see you do it, then you cannot be found guilty.

EDIT: I'm sure Cat's gonna nail me for some point I misrepresented. I don't mind be corrected, however.

That would be great. I'm honestly not one to give safe harbor to resentment. I have very little trouble forgiving almost anything. I just can't seem to do that with this. It's all tangled up inside with the intense sorrow I still feel for all those who didn't make it, with my pride at having done what I thought was my job, with the love I feel for my people and our home. It's a mess.

One thing sure ... at least I don't have as long to worry about it now as I have had.

Oh, who knows, Gramps, with new technologies you could be here arguing with us for half a century more ;)

The point here being aid and comfort. She gave radio addresses that encouraged the VC and called Americans babykillers. She toured with the VC military sitting in AA guns and pretending to shoot down American planes. She met with American POWs and when she did supported their captors and gave the POWs nothing but derision. Her meetings with these POWs was an act that directly resulting in their torture and it could be reasonably expected to do so. Certainly, if Haupt could be found guilty for aiding his son then she could have at least been tried.

You haven't actually documented specific conduct and matched it with a crime.

If you read the findlaw caselaw, then you know these -- even if true -- do not constitute treason.

And saying someone "could have at least been tried" is a far cry from alleging someone is guilty.

There is a reason no prosecutor ever even indicted Ms. Fonda. And there are plenty of right-wing prosecutors that could have made a name for themselves if they thought they could get away with it.

Anyway, although some question whether the Court was right in Haupt v. U.S. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/631.html ), 330 U.S. 631 (1947), let's look at what actions Haupt was found beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of by a jury and why the Court said they were sufficien to constitute treason:

Petitioner is the father of Herber Haupt, one of the eight saboteurs convicted by a military tribunal. See Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 , 63 S.Ct. 1, 2. Sheltering his son, assisting him in getting a job, and in acquiring an automobile, all alleged to be with knowledge of the son's mission, involved defendant in the treason charge.

The background facts are not in dispute. The defendant is a naturalized citizen, born in Germany. He came to this country in 1923 and lived in or near Chicago. In 1939 the son, Herbert, who had also been born in Germany, worked for the Simpson Optical Company in Chicago which manufactured lenses for instruments, including parts for the Norden bomb sight. In the spring of 1941 Herbert went to Mexico and, with the aid of the German Consul, from there to Japan and thence to Germany where he entered the employ of the German Government and was trained in sabotage work.

On the 17th of June 1942, Herbert returned to the United States by submarine. His mission was to act as a secret agent, spy and saboteur for the German Reich. He was instructed to proceed to Chicago, to procure an automobile for the use of himself and his confederates in their work of sabotage and espionage, to obtain reemployment with the Simpson Optical Company where he was to gather information, particularly as to the vital parts and bottlenecks of the plant, to be communicated to his coconspirators to guide their attack. He came with various other instructions, equipped with large sums of money, and went to Chicago.

After some six days there, Herbert was arrested on June 27, 1942, having been under surveillance by Government agents during his entire stay in Chicago. This petitioner was thereafter taken into custody and was arraigned on July 21, 1942. He later asked to talk to an F.B.I. agent, two of whom were summoned, and he appears to have volunteered considerable information and to have given more in answer to their questions. He blamed certain others for the predicament of his son and wanted to testify against [330 U.S. 631, 634] them. For this purpose, he disclosed that he had been present when Herbert had told the complete story of his trip to Mexico, Japan, his return to the United States by submarine, and his bringing large sums of money with him. During his confinement in the Cook County jail he also talked with two fellow prisoners concerning his case and they testified as to damaging admissions made to them.

The indictment alleged twenty-nine overt acts of treason. Its sufficiency ws challenged by demurrer which was overruled and by a motion to quash which was denied. The defendant, at the close of the Government's case and again at the close of all the evidence, made motions for a directed verdict generally and also specifically as to each overt act charged, all of which were denied. Seventeen of the overt acts were withdrawn before submission and twelve were submitted to the jury. Generally stated, the overt acts submitted fall into three groups of charges: First, the charge that this defendant accompanied his son to assist him in obtaining employment in a plant engaged in manufacturing the Norden bomb sight; second, the charge of harboring and sheltering Herbert Haupt; and third, the charge of accompanying Herbert to an automobile sales agency, arranging, making payment for and purchasing an automobile for Herbert. Each of these was alleged to be in aid of Herbert's known purpose of sabotage.

The defendant argues here that the overt acts submitted do not constitute acts of treason, but that each is commonplace, insignificant and colorless, and not sufficient even if properly proved to support a conviction. We have held that the minimum function of the overt act in a treason prosecution is that it show action by the accused which really was aid and comfort to the enemy. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 34 , 65 S.Ct. 918, 934. ...

Cramer's case held that what must be proved by the testimony of two witnesses is a 'sufficient' overt act. There the only proof by two witnesses of two of the three overt acts submitted to the jury was that the defendant had met and talked with enemy agents. We did not set aside Cramer's conviction because two witnesses did not testify to the treasonable character of his meeting with the enemy agents. It was reversed because the Court found that the act which two witnesses saw could not on their testimony be said to have given assistance or comfort to anyone, whether it was done treacherously or not. To make a sufficient overt act, the Court thought it would have been necessary to assume that the meeting or talk was of assistance to the enemy, or to rely on other than two-witness proof. Here, on the contrary, such assumption or reliance is unnecessary-there can be no question that sheltering, or helping to buy a car, or helping to get employment is helpful to an enemy agent, that they were of aid and comfort to Herbert Haupt in his mission of sabotage. They have the unmistakable quality which was found lacking in the Cramer case of forwarding the saboteur in his mission. We pointed out that Cramer furnished no shelter, sustenance or supplies. 325 U.S. 1, 37 , 65 S.Ct. 918, 936. The overt acts charged here, on the contrary, may be generalized as furnishing harbor and shelter for a period of six days, assisting in obtaining employment in the lens plant and helping to buy an automobile. No matter whether young Haupt's mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him. In the light of his mission and his instructions, they were more than casually useful; they were aid in steps essential to his design for treason. If proof be added that the defendant knew of his son's instructions, preparation and plans, the purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear. All of this, of course, assumes that the prosecution's evidence properly in the case is credited, as the jury had a right to do. We hold, therefore, that the overt acts laid in the indictment and submitted to the jury do perform the functions assigned to overt acts in treason cases and are sufficient to support the indictment and to sustain the convictions if they were proved with the exactitude required by the Constitution.

...

It is urged that the conviction cannot be sustained because there is no sufficient proof of adherence to the enemy, the acts of aid and comfort being natural acts of aid for defendant's own son. Certainly that relationship is a fact for the jury to weigh along with others, and they were correctly instructed that if they found that defendants' intention was not to injure the United States but merely to aid his son 'as an individual, as distinguished from assisting him in his purpose, if such existed, of aiding the German Reich, or of injuring the United States, the defendant must be found not guilty.' The defendant can complain of no error in such a submission. It was for the jury to weigh the evidence that the acts proceeded from parental solicitude against the evidence of adherence to the German cause. It is argued that Haupt merely had the misfortune to sire a traitor and all he did was to act as an indulgent father toward a disloyal son. In view however of the evidence of defendant's own statements that after the war he intended to return to Germany, that the United States was going to be defeated, that he would never permit his boy to join the American Army, that he would kill his son before he would send him to fight Germany, and others to the same effect, the jury apparently concluded that the son had the misfortune of being a chip off the old block-a tree inclined as the twig had been bent-metaphors which express the common sense observation that parents are as likely to influence the character of their children as are children to shape that of their parents. Such arguments are for the jury to decide.

Even as alleged, Ms. Fonda's actions pale beside those of Mr. Haupt. If you wish we can further point to the actions of Aaron Burr and his confederates, in whose cases there was found to be insufficient evidence of treason.

As far as what she said being protected by the first amendment, I believe that calling someone a liar when you reasonably know them to be telling the truth is slander, i.e. not protected by the first amendment. I also believe call all american soldiers, and in some cases specific American soldiers, war criminals when they weren't is slanderous as well.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Again, you'd need to point to specific instances. Nonetheless, to use the same broad brush that you are, you are wrong.

There are valid laws against defamation. We can wade into the details if you identify specific statements in specific context. But the laws against defamation are not such a huge loophole in the First Amendment as you seem to assume. I point you to the following portion of the seminal case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html), 376 U.S. 254 (1964):

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 . "The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system." Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 . "t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions," [I]Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 , and this opportunity is to be afforded for "vigorous advocacy" no less than "abstract discussion." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429 . [376 U.S. 254, 270] The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (D.C. S. D. N. Y. 1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 -376, gave the principle its classic formulation:


"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 ; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 365. The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth - whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials - and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 -526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 . As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 , the Court declared:


"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive," N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 , was also recognized by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 678 . Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman's libel suit based upon a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing a judicial appointment. He said:

"Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate." 13

Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error. Where judicial officers are involved, this Court has held that concern for the dignity and reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment as criminal contempt of criticism of the judge or his decision. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 . This is true even though the utterance contains "half-truths" and "misinformation." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342 , 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice. See also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 ; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 . If judges are to be treated as "men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate," Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S., at 376 , surely the same must be true of other government officials, such as elected city commissioners. 14 Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.

If neither factual error nor defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield from criticism of official conduct, the combination of the two elements is no less inadequate.

Oh, who knows, Gramps, with new technologies you could be here arguing with us for half a century more ;)
OMG! Kill me now! :D

You haven't actually documented specific conduct and matched it with a crime.

*snip*

Even as alleged, Ms. Fonda's actions pale beside those of Mr. Haupt. If you wish we can further point to the actions of Aaron Burr and his confederates, in whose cases there was found to be insufficient evidence of treason.

*snip*

There are valid laws against defamation. We can wade into the details if you identify specific statements in specific context. But the laws against defamation are not such a huge loophole in the First Amendment as you seem to assume. I point you to the following portion of the seminal case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html), 376 U.S. 254 (1964):

*snip*

If neither factual error nor defamatory content suffices to remove the constitutional shield from criticism of official conduct, the combination of the two elements is no less inadequate. [/INDENT]

This wasn't criticism of official conduct. She specifically called servicement who were describing their captivity liars. That's far from criticizing a public official.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

I looked on case law and they said specifically that it is not necessary for Haupt to have known the specific intent of his son and that the acts could be acts any parent would do for a son, it only requires that the acts be known to be traitorous. Ms. Fonda was aware that her actions were traitorous. Also, if you'd like more specific actions. How's this:

"When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as 'humane and lenient.' Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel re-bar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped."

The story about a POW forced to kneel on rocky ground while holding a piece of steel rebar in his outstretched arms is true, though. That account comes from Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. His original statement, titled "Shame on Jane," was published in April by the Advocacy and Intelligence Network for POWs and MIAs.

Also, Tokyo Rose was convicted for propaganda radio addresses to the Japanese during WWII. Jane Fonda did the same thing.

When much of this happened, there was a big election coming. Nixon was up for reelection. A conviction of Fonda may have served to galvanize support for the anti-vietnam cause. This is an excellent reason for not to try her for treason who might otherwise want to.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that I enjoy your incite and your job-specific knowledge, but you have to help me out. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how to sufficiently show some of these things. If you ask me specific questions I'm happy to answer them. Most of what you posted about defamation law was very interesting.

By the way, Cat, I'd like to commend you. The fact that we can be at times in agreement and at times not, says you base your discussion on the points and not on the person. I find your arguments reasonable, even though I don't always agree and, ahem, usually respectful (they've always been respectful to me). I also like that you will offer up support for a person or show that they are being reasonable even if you don't necessarily agree with their point. I try to do all of this (I fail at times, specifically when I'm trying to be amusing), and it's nice to have an example to follow.

This wasn't criticism of official conduct. She specifically called servicement who were describing their captivity liars. That's far from criticizing a public official.

Again, you haven't identified specific statements from an independent source. Setting aside the two witness requirement of the Constitution -- which the Supreme Court has strictly enforced -- you haven't even documented specific statements. Just general allegations that she said things of a certain nature at some point.

Her comments were discussing a political question of public debate. Although that one line refers to public officials, the protection of free speech is not so narrow.

Pray tell, did any serviceman allegedly defamed sue Ms. Fonda?

Defamation is not a crime. It is a tort. She could have been sued by anyone she allegedly defamed. She was obviously a deep pocket. Was no one motivated enough to sue?

I looked on case law and they said specifically that it is not necessary for Haupt to have known the specific intent of his son and that the acts could be acts any parent would do for a son, it only requires that the acts be known to be traitorous. Ms. Fonda was aware that her actions were traitorous.

Let's be clear:

1. Haupt's son was a paid agent of Nazi Germany trained in sabotage work and returned to the US via German submarine.

2. Haupt's son's "mission was to act as a secret agent, spy and saboteur for the German Reich. He was instructed to proceed to Chicago, to procure an automobile for the use of himself and his confederates in their work of sabotage and espionage, to obtain reemployment with the Simpson Optical Company where he was to gather information, particularly as to the vital parts and bottlenecks of the plant, to be communicated to his coconspirators to guide their attack."

3. Haupt told the FBI he knew of his son's trip to Germany, return via submarine, and mission.

4. Haupt "accompanied his son to assist him in obtaining employment in a plant engaged in manufacturing the Norden bomb sight" -- i.e., specifically assisting him in part of his mission for Germany.

5. Haupt "harbored and sheltered" his son for 6 days while he was German spy and sabotuer.

6. Haupt took his son to automobile dealership and bought his son an automobile (not a minor thing in 1942) -- again specifically assisting his son in a specific part of his son's mission for Germany.

7. Haupt's son was, of course, seperately convicted as a sabotuer.

8. "In the light of [Haupt's son's] mission and his instructions, [Haupt's actions] were more than casually useful; they were aid in steps essential to his [son's] design for treason. [When proof is] added that the defendant knew of his son's instructions, preparation and plans, the purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear."

9. The jury was "correctly instructed that if they found that defendants' intention was not to injure the United States but merely to aid his son 'as an individual, as distinguished from assisting him in his purpose, if such existed, of aiding the German Reich, or of injuring the United States, the defendant must be found not guilty.'"

10. "It is argued that Haupt merely had the misfortune to sire a traitor and all he did was to act as an indulgent father toward a disloyal son. In view however of the evidence of defendant's own statements that after the war he intended to return to Germany, that the United States was going to be defeated, that he would never permit his boy to join the American Army, that he would kill his son before he would send him to fight Germany, and others to the same effect, the jury apparently concluded that the son had the misfortune of being a chip off the old block-a tree inclined as the twig had been bent..."

12. None of Haupt's actions were protected by the First Amendment. They were not speech or political expression.


Also, if you'd like more specific actions. How's this:

Assuming this is accurate, it doesn't allege any action by Ms. Fonda other than her visiting the North Vietnamese. The POW in question was indirectly affected. Ghastly, if true. But how is this an action by Ms. Fonda that aids and abets the enemy?

Not "aid and comfort" is not simply anything that vaguely can be said to favor the other side. One could loudly and publicly declare that one supported Nazi Germany duing WWII without that being treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Aid and Comfort must be equivalent to levying War against the US on behalf of its enemies.

Also, Tokyo Rose was convicted for propaganda radio addresses to the Japanese during WWII. Jane Fonda did the same thing.

Actually, if you look to your own source, it explains the difference between the cases.

When much of this happened, there was a big election coming. Nixon was up for reelection. A conviction of Fonda may have served to galvanize support for the anti-vietnam cause. This is an excellent reason for not to try her for treason who might otherwise want to.

I'd have to look but I would bet there is a rather long statute of limitations on treason (if there is one at all).

She did not have to be charged immediately to be charged.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that I enjoy your incite and your job-specific knowledge, but you have to help me out. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how to sufficiently show some of these things. If you ask me specific questions I'm happy to answer them. Most of what you posted about defamation law was very interesting.

Thanks. I'm trying to be helpful.

My problem is that you should not go around claiming that someone is guilty of treason without having a firm grasp of (a) what exactly they did and what evidence there is to prove it and (b) what exactly consitutes treason.

Similarly, the First Amendment presumptively protects speech and expressive conduct. In the absence of malice and specific statements defaming a specific person, I wouldn't broadly assert that someone's statements were not protected speech. If it is speech, it is generally protected.

Ms. Fonda was aware that her actions were traitorous.

This does not follow: the US defines treason in terms of aiding the enemies of the USA. If Fonda perceived the political/military-industrial complex which had dragged the US into the Vietnam war to be the actual enemy of the USA, then the claim that she knew she was traitorous fails.

Did she fight against Americans? If you consider speaking out against an unjust war, or posing for photos to be 'fighting against', you have a strange view on it. Damaged the morale of American soldiers? Do you really think they majority of them would have been thinking, "oh man, maybe we're wrong about this if even Jane Fonda wants to be photographed with the enemy..."? Most likely they were cursing her, putting pictures of her up for target practice, and generally getting all agitated about it. Aided and abetted the enemy? Please. If an American celebrity went to Iraq and posed with insurgents, I suppose that would make them a traitor too :rolleyes: .
:sniper: yes i would consider them a traitor.i am against the war personally,and i was not fond of vietnam.but i am definately not fonda jane.she was/ is a publicity whore,and she spit in the faces of every poor soul that died or was mutilated there,and there families.
if she was so in tune with the vc,why didn't/doesn't she live there.i guess hollywood and lot's of money works for her better.it was a publicity stunt at the exspense of men who had no choice being there.
and why did she apologise now for it?too sell her stupid book?do you really think that she doesn't realize the amount of people she spit on with her publicity stunt,if you ask me,she was a traitor of the worse kind..for her own personall gain.glad it backfired on her,if she was on fire in the street,i'd walk on by.and i have no ill will towards people exspressing their opinions,but please,going to a country that your own country is at war with,right or wrongly,is not free speech.it is grandstanding at it's most basic form.
i would have at least an ounce of respect for her if she felt so strongly and signed up with them.but,like i said,she came home to this horrible country to eat at spagos..grrrrr

she was/ is a publicity whore,and she spit in the faces of every poor soul that died or was mutilated there,and there families.


How exactly did she spit in the faces of the Viet Cong that died or were mutilated there, or do they not count as 'people'?

Here's the thing-I don't doubt it happened, and I don't doubt it happened a lot-and even if it happened a little it's not okay. For reasons stated.

And for another reason, which LG touched on-

It has allowed for the characterization of being against a war as being for the other side, or at the very least, against the troops. It is that characterization-that notion-that has allowed the voice of protest to be limited, passed aside and dismissed. And it's ridiculous.

In the link given, the 'damning text' Fonda blames Nixon. In the 'damning text' of Kerry's testimony, he blames congress. They are holding the decission makers responsable for putting the soldiers in an unwarranted position, risking and using them unneccisarily.

Here's my question-Vietnam fell. North overtook the south, 'we' lost. And yet the dominos didn't fall with it-asia did not collapse into communism and start the world down the red path. Nothing happened. A civil war in a small asian country simply went one way instead of another. Where is the anger at the people who really got soldiers killed? Not esotericly, but really and demonstably killed? Where is the spit in the face of Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, the policy makers, the people who sent the soldiers to die in a war unneccisarily? Why do they get a pass? Why aren't they held responsable? If you cared, really cared, about the troops you'd care that they where only asked to sacrafice when it is absolutely neccisary, and to hold those who risk them unneccisarilly where held responsable.
that is a valid point.
however their feet will never be held to the fire,nor will people like fonda.they are the upper caste of society and are above responsibility for their actions.
as far as fonda goes,spitting in her face is an act of assault,and is crimminal,and he should be charged and prosecuted.that being said,if you hurt someone i care for,i will assault you because i am human and have emotions,not animal..but if you deserve a beatdown,on the facts,your gonna get it.and i will pay society the price of my behaviour,just like this spitter will.i think she got off pretty easy.
there was alot more productive things she coulda done with her celebrity,but she chose to pull her publicity stunt.were,even if misguided youth,is the accountability for actions..which hurt so many?none,so a little spit in her face is a small price she paid for her..."misguided actions"
i have made mistakes of judgement,and paid for them in numerous ways,wish being spit upon was the worse penalty i ever paid..lol

Hey, Eutrusca! I went to the movies earlier tonight and on my way to the theatre I walked through the bookstore (yes, I can't resist walking through a bookstore whenever I get the chance) and, guess who I saw there? Yup, ex-Mrs Ted Turner herself, talking about something or other and signing books.

I told her you said hi, and then she said "does that mean he's finally over me leaving him for Ted?" :eek: :D

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!
You know Eutrusca, that in an earlier thread, you praised Pope John Paul for forgiving his assailant, and you stated that you didn't know if you could do the same.

In that same thread, I posted the title of a book (From Anger to Forgiveness), which I personally found very helpful. In actuality, I had a tape version about 60 minutes in length, and I listened to it about 10 times. Through prayer and forgiveness, I could not only relieve my anger, but also my hate. The tape made me realize that as long as I was angry with a person, I was in bondage. In other words, that person "owned" me.

Recently, a very wise person told me that love and hate cannot reside in the same house. I realize that hate is such a wasted emotion and it blocks the love inside and stifles the spirit.

In this very thread, you have expressed hate, anger, jealousy, and a lust for revenge. I am not trying to do your inventory but my count, that would be four of the seven deadly sins (http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven/). Whether that matters to you, I don't know....I am just sharing my own experience and maybe it can be helpful to others?

Here is a short blurb on the book/tape:

In this understanding and supportive guide, renowned writer, lecturer, and counselor Earnie Larsen lays out a new strategy for identifying and facing up to our underground reservoirs of resentment and rage and moving beyond them to forgiveness. Gently, patiently, he teaches us that we can learn how to reclaim the power that anger has over us, and restablish relationships and rebuild bridges that might have been burned--as we move forward toward a new serenity and understanding of ourselves, and the hidden needs that have kept us stuck and helpless.

Good luck.

By the way, Cat, I'd like to commend you. The fact that we can be at times in agreement and at times not, says you base your discussion on the points and not on the person. I find your arguments reasonable, even though I don't always agree and, ahem, usually respectful (they've always been respectful to me). I also like that you will offer up support for a person or show that they are being reasonable even if you don't necessarily agree with their point. I try to do all of this (I fail at times, specifically when I'm trying to be amusing), and it's nice to have an example to follow.

Wow. Thanks.

I'm not sure I deserve this.

I, myself, often find my arguments in hindsight far less respectful than they should be. ;)

But I appreciate the message and will use it as encouragement to be more civil.

And, I should add that, although we have disagreed strongly on some points, you are usually respectful. I also appreciate that you are willing to recognize that issues are complicated, to admit error or alter your opinion, and to recognize the legitimacy of other viewpoints. These are often blind spots for me. :)

To kinda put a counterpoint on the actions of Hanoi Jane, I wanted to mention some activities of current entertainers. I watched Charlie Daniels on Hannity last night and the guy is great. I've always liked listening to him, but he has such a good opinion of our troops and our mission that I'll start buying his albums:). He, and many other entertainers are such a pleasant change from Sean, Little Sadam, Penn, Barbara Streisand, and the Ditzy Chicks.

Too bad they get all the press. Too bad Jane didn't visit our guys, instead of the NVA. I think they would have appreciated it.

She did nothing to "aid" the enemy. She simply tried to get people to stop and think about the injustice and absurdity of the war, showing them, for example, a bit about the people on the other side. A bit of welcome anti-propaganda, against those demonizing the Viet-Cong.

Well, almost. She IS responsible for the death of 2 American POWs, I believe. Maybe 3, I can't remember perfectly. The POWs slipped her secret information believing that she was on the American's side, so that they could possibly escape. Jane Fonda took that secret info and went directly to the VC guard in charge.

I'd call her a traitor, personally. Sounded like she did "aid" the enemy.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!


Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda (http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/04/20/112694.html)
TIM CURRAN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

yeah, I can understand why some people hate her. But since I'm not american, all I can mention is that I enjoyed Barbarella. :)

Well, almost. She IS responsible for the death of 2 American POWs, I believe. Maybe 3, I can't remember perfectly. The POWs slipped her secret information believing that she was on the American's side, so that they could possibly escape. Jane Fonda took that secret info and went directly to the VC guard in charge.
You have made a serious charge here, and all I ask is that you prove what you have stated. My guess is that you can't? :eek:

Well, almost. She IS responsible for the death of 2 American POWs, I believe. Maybe 3, I can't remember perfectly. The POWs slipped her secret information believing that she was on the American's side, so that they could possibly escape. Jane Fonda took that secret info and went directly to the VC guard in charge.

I'd call her a traitor, personally. Sounded like she did "aid" the enemy.
If you actually read this thread, you'd knoiw that a link to Snopes that debunked this was posted not one, not two, but three times.

Well, almost. She IS responsible for the death of 2 American POWs, I believe. Maybe 3, I can't remember perfectly. The POWs slipped her secret information believing that she was on the American's side, so that they could possibly escape. Jane Fonda took that secret info and went directly to the VC guard in charge.

I'd call her a traitor, personally. Sounded like she did "aid" the enemy.

Though I still think she is a traitor, this part has been debunked as a myth..

What a disgusting display. This is the type of intolerance that runs rampant in America this guy is now the hero to thousands of intolerant hatemongers.

It does not surprise me at all.

What a disgusting display. This is the type of intolerance that runs rampant in America this guy is now the hero to thousands of intolerant hatemongers.

It does not surprise me at all.

Yeah, so intolerant. After all these years,and given what she did, the only thing that happened to her was that she got spit on. These people were trained in the use of arms, and jungle warfare and this is the only thing that happened. Doesnt strike me as either intolerant or hatemongering.

I suppose you call all those pie/salad dressing throwers intolerant hatemongers also. Or doesnt it count when a conservative is on the receiving end.

Her comments were discussing a political question of public debate. Although that one line refers to public officials, the protection of free speech is not so narrow.

Pray tell, did any serviceman allegedly defamed sue Ms. Fonda?

Actually, not that I know of. In 1973, to be fair, people were not nearly as quick to sue as they are today.

Defamation is not a crime. It is a tort. She could have been sued by anyone she allegedly defamed. She was obviously a deep pocket. Was no one motivated enough to sue?

I know it's not a crime. I was pointing out that defamation is not protected by free speech. The right to free speech is not meant to protect your right to lie or defame, but when in a court of a law we must err on the side of freedom or we travel down a very dangerous path. I still hold that if Jane Fonda knowingly lied and defamed individuals that it does not fall under freedom of speech.

A specific example - John McCain was tortured for refusing to meet with Jane Fonda during her visit to Viet Nam. When he returned home he publicly made this claim and she called him "a hypocrite and a liar". Also, he was among the group that she said could not have mistreated as they looked too healthy to have been mistreated.

Assuming this is accurate, it doesn't allege any action by Ms. Fonda other than her visiting the North Vietnamese. The POW in question was indirectly affected. Ghastly, if true. But how is this an action by Ms. Fonda that aids and abets the enemy?

It has been shown to be true, and she could reasonably expect that her actions would result in the further torture of POWs. It is reasonable to believe POWs were being tortured and that if they were brought before Fonda and refused to lie about their treatment that more torture would ensue. Are you suggesting that if I knowingly caused you to be tortured that I'm not guilty of a crime?

Not "aid and comfort" is not simply anything that vaguely can be said to favor the other side. One could loudly and publicly declare that one supported Nazi Germany duing WWII without that being treason.

Aid and Comfort must be equivalent to levying War against the US on behalf of its enemies.

No, nor is aid and comfort say feeding them or providing medical assistance (anymore, it probably would have been considered so by the framers of the constitution). However, I would suggest that encouraging enemy soldiers to go out and kill Americans, encouraging Americans to surrender to the VC (while on Vietnamese radio), producing propaganda specifically to be used by the VA, and knowingly causing Americans to be tortured would all be considered aid and comfort to the enemy. If I'm wrong legally, I'll accept that, but it doesn't change my belief that she should be considered guilty of treason.

Actually, if you look to your own source, it explains the difference between the cases.

One major difference being that Tokyo Rose was likely not guilty of actually creating propaganda for the enemy.

I'd have to look but I would bet there is a rather long statute of limitations on treason (if there is one at all).

She did not have to be charged immediately to be charged.

There is no statute of limitations. I would say that the results of the Chicago 7 trial and similar trials would be enough to give a prosecuter pause then and now. Also, once the war had ended and politics began to change in America, I can't imagine who it would serve or how the odds of conviction would go up.

Thanks. I'm trying to be helpful.

My problem is that you should not go around claiming that someone is guilty of treason without having a firm grasp of (a) what exactly they did and what evidence there is to prove it and (b) what exactly consitutes treason.

I think OJ Simpson is guilty of murder and I plan to state that fact any time it is poignant. Fortunately, the courts are held to a higher standard than I am. Not being tried or not being found guilty is not proof of innocence in my opinion. As we both know, courts don't find people innocent of crimes, they find them not guilty beyond the reasonable doubt of the court (this does not always mean beyond reasonable doubt outside of the court). I do know the VC considered her to have given comfort and aid and held a celebration to honor her assitance to them during the war when she returned with her son after the surrender of South Viet Nam. Her son was christianed (not sure if this is the appropriate term here) with the name Troi after a man who was hanged for treason in South Viet Nam during the war.

Similarly, the First Amendment presumptively protects speech and expressive conduct. In the absence of malice and specific statements defaming a specific person, I wouldn't broadly assert that someone's statements were not protected speech. If it is speech, it is generally protected.

I would say there was malice in statements saying the American POWs landing in Clark Field in 1973 where she said of the treatment they claimed to have received that they were hypocrites and liars (she liked those words) and history would judge them severely.

I think if Jane Fonda saw me go into a fire and pull out two children and then went on the news and said that she'd seen it all and I hadn't pulled out those children and that I shouldn't be considered a hero, but instead a liar, it would be slander. I don't accept that because she wasn't sued this isn't so.

I'm finding this particularly difficult to support because most sources I can find are relatively new and are filled with propaganda on both sides of the issue. Half the sources I find regarding Jane Fonda say something about the slips of paper or claim she was a pacifist (something she specifically said she was not). I don't think this is evidence that Jane Fonda is not guilty of a crime but the difficulty of looking for evidence of something that happened so long ago.

NOTE: There are very, very few people I truly hate, but this bitch is most definitely one of them!


Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda (http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?cat=ENTERTAINMENT&fn=/2005/04/20/112694.html)
TIM CURRAN, Associated Press Writer
56 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far." The thrice-married, two-time Academy Award winner covers a wide array of topics, including her 1972 visit to Hanoi to protest the Vietnam War, during which she was photographed on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. She has apologized for that photo, but not for opposing the war.

Capt. Rich Lockhart of the Kansas City Police Department said that although Fonda did not want to press charges against Michael A. Smith, 54, of Kansas City, he was arrested on a municipal charge of disorderly conduct after off-duty officers caught him just outside Unity Temple, where Fonda was signing books.

Lockhart said Smith was released on bond late Tuesday night and is due to appear in municipal court on May 27.

Smith, a Vietnam veteran, told The Kansas City Star on Wednesday that Fonda was a "traitor" and that her protests against the war were unforgivable. He said he normally does not chew tobacco but did so Tuesday solely to spit juice on the actress.

"I consider it a debt of honor," he told The Star for a story on its Web site, www.kansascity.com. "She spit in our faces for 37 years. It was absolutely worth it. There are a lot of veterans who would love to do what I did."

Fonda drew a crowd of about 900 for her appearance, said Vivian Jennings, whose Rainy Day Books of suburban Fairway, Kan., sponsored the event at Unity Temple in Kansas City. Fonda, 67, spoke for about 15 minutes, answered questions for another 15, then began signing copies of her book.

Jennings said the actress never got up from her seat and continued autographing books after the tobacco juice was wiped off.

GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE!!!!!

How exactly did she spit in the faces of the Viet Cong that died or were mutilated there, or do they not count as 'people'?

No, they do not. Vietnamese are people, Vietcong are not. But don't get me wrong, Ngo Dinh Diem wasn't a human, neither. Neither were the Free World Military Forces that committed atrocities.

Someone just kill her so the vets can get over it.

I'll do it! :D

No, they do not. Vietnamese are people, Vietcong are not. But don't get me wrong, Ngo Dinh Diem wasn't a human, neither. Neither were the Free World Military Forces that committed atrocities.

I'm not sure you get to 'choose' who is 'people'.

I daresay that many of the victims of Agent Orange or Napalm suspected they were under the wrath of monsters, rather than 'people', don't you think?

What a disgusting display. This is the type of intolerance that runs rampant in America this guy is now the hero to thousands of intolerant hatemongers.

It does not surprise me at all.
And I'm not surprised that you take the "politically correct" position of supporting the alleged "right" of a known traitor and denigrating those who would love to see this bitch brought to justice!

This is the sort of mental duplicity that keeps this entire issue alive. I am not an "intolerant hatemonger," as you alledge. I am a Vietnam veteran who still cannot let go of the disgust I cannot help but feel against all protestors because of "people" like you who insist that veterans are the problem, not God damned assholes like Hanoi Jane.

Is my anger coming through? GOOD! :mad:

Considering that spitting on someone is assault, while speaking out against something one doesn't agree with is not a criminal action... And look, she didn't even press charges despite the fact that she was assaulted and could do so.

Considering that spitting on someone is assault, while speaking out against something one doesn't agree with is not a criminal action... And look, she didn't even press charges despite the fact that she was assaulted and could do so.
Yeah. Ain't she sweet though. :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know what assault 1 (that's what it's called here anyways) gets you in terms of jail time compared to disorderly conduct... so she might have saved him quite a bunch of jail time there.

Well, I don't know what assault 1 (that's what it's called here anyways) gets you in terms of jail time compared to disorderly conduct... so she might have saved him quite a bunch of jail time there.
I don't think he was concerned about that at the time, and apparently not even now. He was willing to accept the consequences of what he saw as a necessary action.

Yeah. Ain't she sweet though. :rolleyes:


apparently she is - who woulda thunk it?

I don't think he was concerned about that at the time, and apparently not even now. He was willing to accept the consequences of what he saw as a necessary action.

You don't even catch a glimpse of the irony there, do you?

I am a Vietnam veteran who still cannot let go of the disgust I cannot help but feel against all protestors because of "people" like you who insist that veterans are the problem, not God damned assholes like Hanoi Jane.

Is my anger coming through? GOOD! :mad:
No, actually it is probably governments such as yours that put soldiers onto a field of battle, in a war that wasn't necessary, but if you want to blame Jane for your troubles, be my guest.

Enjoy your anger, even if it is 30 years old. :eek:

You don't even catch a glimpse of the irony there, do you?
I never said that Hanoi Jane wasn't doing what she thought was "right," I ( and several thousands of others ) just don't agree.

I never said that Hanoi Jane wasn't doing what she thought was "right," I ( and several thousands of others ) just don't agree.

And yet you are practically hero-worshipping a man who broke the laws of the land to 'do what he thought was right'... over an issue no more important than his own hurt feelings...

While lambasting another person for doing what she thought was right... over an issue no less important that her nation at war.

I don't see how you justify the one, and pour scorn upon the other.

And yet you are practically hero-worshipping a man who broke the laws of the land to 'do what he thought was right'... over an issue no more important than his own hurt feelings...

While lambasting another person for doing what she thought was right... over an issue no less important that her nation at war.

I don't see how you justify the one, and pour scorn upon the other.
If you think this is about "hurt feelings" you're not 1/10th as intelligent as I thought you were.

If you think this is about "hurt feelings" you're not 1/10th as intelligent as I thought you were.

Easy there, no need to flame here.


Meanwhile, I fail to see how anyone cheering for the death of soldiers and lying flat-out about their plight could possibly even be thought of as having done what they thought was right, much less having actually done something right.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking out against a war you don't agree with. I don't see how anyone can argue that wishing for the death of men and women who have no say in the matter and lying about conditions in POW camps - effectively slandering these men - could possibly be "right".

I think it would be interesting to see what Senator McCain's opinion of Jane Fonda is, although I doubt he'd stop out of his politician skin and speak his mind.

And yet you are practically hero-worshipping a man who broke the laws of the land to 'do what he thought was right'... over an issue no more important than his own hurt feelings...

While lambasting another person for doing what she thought was right... over an issue no less important that her nation at war.

I don't see how you justify the one, and pour scorn upon the other.

Lots of people do what they think is right, Hitler thought what he was doing was right. I'm not comparing her to Hitler, but pretending like every person who does what they think is right is automatically of equal worth or that if their reasoning (Hitler did it because his countries economy was failing) is noble that it excuses their actions is just silly.

The man believes that Jane Fonda helped us lose a war, increased casualties and caused a lot of good men to have been spit upon, all while slandering POWs and committing treason. I would hardly call that hurt feelings. The man thought it was a small amount of justice.

If I spit in a man's face for raping my daughter would that be considered over my "own hurt feelings". Wording it that way doesn't make your statement even close to resemble an accurate account of what happened.

If you spit when you talk then it's freedom of speech... :P

I don't appreciate what Jane Fonda did in the war, but she's changed since then. And spitting tobacco into someone's face is plain barbaric.

She can't change what she did 30 years ago, but fortunately for the man who spit at her, she changed what she is since then, otherwise he'd be cooling his heels in the slammer for a considerably longer time than he is.

I don't appreciate what Jane Fonda did in the war, but she's changed since then. And spitting tobacco into someone's face is plain barbaric.

She can't change what she did 30 years ago, but fortunately for the man who spit at her, she changed what she is since then, otherwise he'd be cooling his heels in the slammer for a considerably longer time than he is.

A) lets see if a jury find him guilty
b) Wonder what type of judge would hand out jail time for this type of offense instead of say community service and a fine
C) He is a vetern, I bet he could take a few day in county lockup.

Oh grow up you tobacco chewing rube. (the man in the article, not you Eut) I don't care how much you dislike a person's politics, spitting in anyone's face is just rude.

So much for free speech...she spoke out against the war (as did many), and has become reviled and branded a traitor. Just like the Dixie Chicks. Just like so many. Yay for self-censorship! Who needs national laws to deal with people who speak against the government when your own citizens will 'deal' with them?

Are you kidding? There was a picture of her laughing on top of a North Vietnamese tank. She was the one spitting in the face of all those soldiers.

I don't appreciate what Jane Fonda did in the war, but she's changed since then. And spitting tobacco into someone's face is plain barbaric.

She still holds unrealistic ideas about Vietnam, and espouses her extremist views everywhere...even making correlations and connections between Vietnam and our current war in Iraq.

You've gotta give the guy some credit though, I mean, here is a guy, who waited 90 minutes in line with a huge wad of tobacco in his mouth just to spit a mouthfull of juice in the face of a person who dishonored him and his fellow soldiers. Jane Fandas book:$18.00, Tin of chewing Tobacco :$5.00, Seeing the face of someone you hate after spitting a smelly brown juice on their face:Priceless.

She still holds unrealistic ideas about Vietnam, and espouses her extremist views everywhere...even making correlations and connections between Vietnam and our current war in Iraq.

In truth, there *are* correlations between the Vietnam war and our current war in Iraq.

Watch a movie called "The Fog of War." It' s basically interviews with MacNimara (sp?) and has clips of presedential speeches, etc. at the time. The rhetoric used is so close that, for a moment, I thought my boyfriend had switched the movie over to a current news broadcast just as Johnson started talking.

You've gotta give the guy some credit though, I mean, here is a guy, who waited 90 minutes in line with a huge wad of tobacco in his mouth just to spit a mouthfull of juice in the face of a person who dishonored him and his fellow soldiers. Jane Fandas book:$18.00, Tin of chewing Tobacco :$5.00, Seeing the face of someone you hate after spitting a smelly brown juice on their face:Priceless.
Herein lies the problem. Over 30 years ago, Jane Fonda took a trip to North Vietnam to protest against the war, and apparently her actions were not appreciated by some people in the US. And now she is back in the news again because some person who was carrying anger/hate for Fonda's actions over 30 years ago, decided to spit in her face.

The bad news is that it became big news once again, and it even led to the creation of this thread and blog space on many more web sites. Why is that bad news? For the simple reason, is that when people unearth the past, some of the past will come back to haunt those that want to forget that the Vietnam War was not one of America's defining moments as a nation?

By focusing and directing hate and anger towards Jane Fonda, other stories invariably resurface. In a blog, I found this (http://www.illinoisleader.com/discussion/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=40&TopicID=4462):

So how did it gradually turn in the 60's and 70's? The Vietnamese impression of Americans was from the American and Canadian missionaries in Vietnam, of which there were many. The CMA, The Regions Beyond and others had many hundreds there. These missionaries were meek, mild, low self esteem, Read the Bible, pray, teach school and run the clinic. No violence. No sex. Totally inoffensive.

Then Kennedy sent "quality" to Vietnam. They weren't angels but on the whole decent ambassadors for us.

Then LBJ sent "quantity". A small percentage of 550,000 would rape the local women. Every time one of our guys raped a woman, her entire extended family turned anti-American and sympathetic to the communists.... at least in a "strange bedfellows" coaltion. We never lost a battle. Our loss was not a military loss.... it was a morality loss.

This was during the early years of the sexual revolution. The guys in Vietnam were at the peak of their hormone years and felt that they were missing out on all the free sex in the states. They would receive letters from anti-war protestors saying that those protestors were "doing" the GIs girlfriend or wife. Most GIs were not out in the field fighting. They were like me, stuck in a base camp bored stiff. They would read Playboy, get horny, get drunk, go into town and rape some woman.

They also played a game of scoring points by forcing "gooks" off the shoulder of the road into the rice paddy. We lost the war off the battle field.

There are lots of other unsavoury actions that took place in that war, and I ask you is it "priceless" to have those skeletons escaping from the closet in order to exact a small token of revenge to an action that took place over 30 years ago?

*SNIP*

There are lots of other unsavoury actions that took place in that war, and I ask you is it "priceless" to have those skeletons escaping from the closet in order to exact a small token of revenge to an action that took place over 30 years ago?

Excellent point.

Herein lies the problem. Over 30 years ago, Jane Fonda took a trip to North Vietnam to protest against the war, and apparently her actions were not appreciated by some people in the US. And now she is back in the news again because some person who was carrying anger/hate for Fonda's actions over 30 years ago, decided to spit in her face.

The bad news is that it became big news once again, and it even led to the creation of this thread and blog space on many more web sites. Why is that bad news? For the simple reason, is that when people unearth the past, some of the past will come back to haunt those that want to forget that the Vietnam War was not one of America's defining moments as a nation?

By focusing and directing hate and anger towards Jane Fonda, other stories invariably resurface. In a blog, I found this (http://www.illinoisleader.com/discussion/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=40&TopicID=4462):

So how did it gradually turn in the 60's and 70's? The Vietnamese impression of Americans was from the American and Canadian missionaries in Vietnam, of which there were many. The CMA, The Regions Beyond and others had many hundreds there. These missionaries were meek, mild, low self esteem, Read the Bible, pray, teach school and run the clinic. No violence. No sex. Totally inoffensive.

Then Kennedy sent "quality" to Vietnam. They weren't angels but on the whole decent ambassadors for us.

Then LBJ sent "quantity". A small percentage of 550,000 would rape the local women. Every time one of our guys raped a woman, her entire extended family turned anti-American and sympathetic to the communists.... at least in a "strange bedfellows" coaltion. We never lost a battle. Our loss was not a military loss.... it was a morality loss.

This was during the early years of the sexual revolution. The guys in Vietnam were at the peak of their hormone years and felt that they were missing out on all the free sex in the states. They would receive letters from anti-war protestors saying that those protestors were "doing" the GIs girlfriend or wife. Most GIs were not out in the field fighting. They were like me, stuck in a base camp bored stiff. They would read Playboy, get horny, get drunk, go into town and rape some woman.

They also played a game of scoring points by forcing "gooks" off the shoulder of the road into the rice paddy. We lost the war off the battle field.

There are lots of other unsavoury actions that took place in that war, and I ask you is it "priceless" to have those skeletons escaping from the closet in order to exact a small token of revenge to an action that took place over 30 years ago?
I was in Vietnam for two years straight. During that time I was a counterinsurgency team leader, an advisor, and a company commander. Never once did I know of an instance of rape by any of the men with whom I worked, or by any who worked in the entire organizations covered by my next higher command level.

For someone who seems to be so concerned about the feelings of individuals, you certainly don't seem to have much compassion for those of us who still carry around the anger and hurt for those 30 years you mention.

I was in Vietnam for two years straight. During that time I was a counterinsurgency team leader, an advisor, and a company commander. Never once did I know of an instance of rape by any of the men with whom I worked, or by any who worked in the entire organizations covered by my next higher command level.

For someone who seems to be so concerned about the feelings of individuals, you certainly don't seem to have much compassion for those of us who still carry around the anger and hurt for those 30 years you mention.
I have tons of compassion. However, there are always two sides to a story and when one side starts to insist that their truth is the only truth, then people will automatically look for verification. So who do I trust? Do I trust that you and you alone are telling the truth, or is there some merit in this other guys truth? Why would he lie?

What I can't understand is why people want to harbour this anger and hurt for over 30 years? Surely there is a time to let go of it. All you are doing in punishing yourself, while that other person doesn't even know that you exist.

Maybe some people don't want peace or any qualitative form of serenity?

I have tons of compassion. However, there are always two sides to a story and when one side starts to insist that their truth is the only truth, then people will automatically look for verification. So who do I trust? Do I trust that you and you alone are telling the truth, or is there some merit in this other guys truth? Why would he lie?

What I can't understand is why people want to harbour this anger and hurt for over 30 years? Surely there is a time to let go of it. All you are doing in punishing yourself, while that other person doesn't even know that you exist.

Maybe some people don't want peace or any qualitative form of serenity?
As you would have learned had you read the other posts I've made to this thread, I have tried many, many times to "let go of it," as you put it. Sometimes I suceeded in merely supressing it for many years, only to have it resurface at some later, unexpected time. It's not as easy as you seem to think. Some of my brothers are still in psychiatric wards because of Vietnam and the hatred and vituperation they received when they returned home.

I was in Vietnam for two years straight. During that time I was a counterinsurgency team leader, an advisor, and a company commander. Never once did I know of an instance of rape by any of the men with whom I worked, or by any who worked in the entire organizations covered by my next higher command level.

For someone who seems to be so concerned about the feelings of individuals, you certainly don't seem to have much compassion for those of us who still carry around the anger and hurt for those 30 years you mention.

Eut,

I don't think he was agreeing with what was posted on the blog. I read what he said to mean that by spitting in Fonda's face, this man reopened a thirty-year-old debate and a thirty-year-old wound. Certainly, you can concede that his actions and the ensuing debate have revived some of the hurt you feel, yes?